Mr Chairman, two important subjects in connection with health services which have to be discussed this year, are firstly the restructuring of our health services into own and general affairs and secondly, the restructuring of the provincial hospital system. Another very important matter that has to be discussed is the privatisation of our health services.

Unfortunately it was not possible for me to be present here immediately the debate started yesterday. However, I did read the hon the Minister’s speech and I also noticed that he in fact discussed one of these two very important matters in his introductory speech. Consequently I now want to elaborate somewhat on what the hon the Minister said and of course add a few ideas of my own.

The hon the Minister was quite right when he said that the disconcerting increase in costs was due to certain reasons. In this regard he referred inter alia to the growing population, the higher life expectancy of modern man, urbanisation and an improvement in people’s level of education.

†Mr Chairman, if hon members will bear with me, I should like to elaborate to some extent on these four aspects. I also want to try to advance other reasons for these developments, and perhaps to suggest some possible solutions to the problems and ways of combating them.

First of all, I want to refer to the rapid population increase. In 1980 the total population of South Africa was approximately 23,5 million. In the year 2000 it will be 45 million. In 2020 it will be between 58 million and 68 million. This actually means that in 2020 there will be approximately 50 million Blacks, 6,5 million Whites, 4,5 million Coloureds and 1,4 million Asians in South Africa. This means in effect a 250% increase in our Black population, a 52% increase in our White population, a 74% increase in our Coloured population and a 69% increase in our Asian population between 1980 and 2020.

This increase in our population is due not only to the high fertility rate of certain sections of our population, but also to an increase in the life expectancy, the latter being the result of improvements in modern medicine. It is important, therefore, just to see what the average life expectancy is going to be. In 1977, for instance, the life expectancy of a Black male was 49. In 1980 it was 55. The average life expectancy of the Black female was 55,6 in 1977 and 66,6 in 1980. The average life expectancy of White males was 64,1 in 1977 and 66,8 in 1980. The average life expectancy of White females was 71 in 1977 and 73,8 in 1980. This increased life expectancy applies to all the other racial groups as well, and as their standards of living improve, an even greater life expectancy will become apparent in all these people.

What does this all mean? It means that in 1980, 1,1 million out of our total population were over the age of 65. By 2020 this figure will have risen to 3,8 million—an increase of 2,7 million!

Let us look at the increased life expectancy in terms of percentages. As far as the Blacks are concerned, it has been projected that by 2020 there will be 292% more people over the age of 65 than there were in 1980; in the case of the Whites the increase is 142%; Coloureds 322%; and Asians 514%. There can be no doubt about it: An increase in the lifespan of the individual means an increase in the population, and need for medical care of the aged and thus an increase in expenditure on health.

The third reason for the increase in our health expenditure will be the demand for better health care. First World medicine is definitely more expensive than Third World medicine, and as we enhance the education of our people, as increased urbanisation takes place, and as better housing is provided, so will the demand for expensive health care by a Third World population increase. This of course adds another dimension to the increased cost of health care in this country.

This will result in increased pressure on the percentage of the GNP spent on health. The hon the Minister yesterday said that at present South Africa spends approximately 5% of the GNP on health. He compared that with America where it is 11%. In Western Europe it varies between 8% and 10%. That is because in Europe and in America there is an increased demand for better and more expensive health care to be available to the people. Therefore we have an increasing population, an increase in the life expectancy of people, and an increased demand for First World medicine. These are the facts the hon the Minister quite rightly referred to yesterday.

This increased demand is already becoming obvious and that is why one reads in every newspaper of the increasing cost of health care.

There is another dimension that must be remembered. In spite of stringent savings by the Government and efforts to limit the cost of health expenditure there has been an increase in the percentage of the money spent by the various provincial departments. I only have time to give one example. When one looks at the health expenditure of the Cape Provincial Administration one finds that in 1982-83 health costs increased by 22%; in 1983-84 the increase was 17,6%; and in 1984-85 it was 22,3%. When one looks at these figures one sees that they are basically the same as the inflation rate. However, this annual increase of approximately 20% in the health expenditure of the Cape Provincial Administration occurred during a period when every effort was being made to curtail expenditure. The hon the Minister himself will know what efforts were made to curtail the increase. There must therefore also be other reasons for the increase in the expenditure.

I would like to deal with a few reasons for the increase that I believe are of very great importance.

There is no doubt that the public, the patients of the modern world of today, expect and demand sophisticated health care.

In the days when the hon the Minister and I qualified as doctors and a patient with a pain in his chest arrived at our consulting rooms we basically took down his history, examined him and we might have given him a chest X-ray or an ECG. However, nowadays such a patient will demand that one conducts a stress test on him and perhaps gives him an echo-cardiogram. All these sophisticated improvements have resulted in an unbelievable demand on what I feel to be a justifiably more expensive health service.

I am very upset when hon members speak of a terrific increase in the cost of medicine. There has been a great increase in the standard of medicine and therefore the cost has increased. When I first started doing cardiac surgery we would make a prosthetic valve ourselves and it cost R75. However, we very soon realised that this valve was not up to the standard of a similar product from overseas. Since then this valve has undergone sophisticated technological development. Where such a valve lasted from three to five years in the past it now lasts for 20 years. At the same time however, the cost of such a valve has risen to R4 500. [Interjections.]

The question to ask is if it is expensive to spend R4 000 for an increased life expectancy of 20 years in better health? I therefore feel that the South African public and Press should be very careful before they attack the rising costs of health care and blame the so-called closed system in the medical profession as the hon member for Durban Point tried to do yesterday. People demand better health care and they deserve it. We have to realise that one has to pay more for a better health service. No person expects to pay the same for an Anglia as for a Mercedes.

When we plan the future of health services in South Africa we have to take this into consideration—we cannot simply forget about it.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member for Parktown that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon Whip.

I believe not only that it is the right of the people to enjoy this standard of medicine, but that the medical profession, the Government and everybody else concerned should work towards ensuring an even better health care system. We must conquer cancer and tuberculosis. We must eradicate the diseases that kill people.

The medical profession has achieved a better quality and quantity of life for all, and I do not believe that the increased medical costs involved are as dreadful a phenomenon as everybody says it is. We must, therefore, look for other ways and means of making health care of the highest standard available to every citizen of this country.

There are, however, methods by which we can reduce costs, some of which I would like to discuss with the hon the Minister in the hope that we shall see eye to eye on at least some points. The hon the Minister will not like some of the things I am about to say, but they will be said in a genuine attempt to be constructive.

We have to deal with factors such as the increasing population and the increased life expectancy of our people. We can do nothing to stop the movement of the Third World towards First World standards and the increasing demand for health services which this brings. In fact we should encourage it, because it means that the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development has succeeded in improving the quality of life of the people. If this is what we sincerely want to do, we will have to accept that our health services are going to cost more.

One thing which would help us try to cut the cost of our health care system would be an attempt by the hon the Minister of Finance to reduce the cost of living. There is no doubt about the fact that South Africa’s high inflation rate is reflected in our expenditure on health services. If the inflation rate rises by 20% per year, health expenditure also increases. One cannot expect health products to stay cheap while everything else becomes more expensive. The escalating cost of everything around us has played a significant role in the increase in health care costs in South Africa.

With this goes what, I should like to call, the anaemia of the rand. The weakness of the rand has played a dominant role in the increase in the cost of health care in South Africa. This valve which I mentioned and which has to be imported from America cost R600 when I first started using it, and it now costs R4 500. However, that is not only due to the cost increase and the better make; it is also due to the fact that whereas we could once get three dollars to the rand, we can now get only half a dollar to the rand. Most of our highly technical equipment and drugs are imported from overseas and therefore the low value of the rand has played a dominant role. Now, I cannot do anything about that, but we hope that South Africa’s economic conditions and political situation will improve so that we will once again be able to obtain cheaper health care products from overseas to reduce the cost of our health services.

I think that the hon the Minister must speak to the hon the Minister of Finance once again and ask him on behalf of the sick people of South Africa to remove all taxation on medical products. This is essential. If the Government is sincere about reducing costs, it has to do away with import duties and especially the 12% GST on these substances. The former hon Minister said one cannot make a profit out of drugs. By the same token, the Government should not tax drugs either. I should think that one of the first contributions which we can make to fight this alarming increase in the cost of drugs, equipment and instruments is to reduce the taxation. I should like this hon Minister to speak to the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development so that a combined effort can be made to improve the situation. I think this is one of the first things to be done in order to reduce costs.

This brings me to the issue of differentiation in health services on racial grounds. We have discussed this before. I asked the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development some questions about it during the debate on his Vote but he did not reply. I also asked the hon the Minister of the Budget, but he did not reply to me either. I have spoken to the hon the Minister whose Vote we are discussing today, but just like his colleagues he did not really justify or defend the differentiation in health services. This differentiation is going to result in unnecessarily high costs. I am not the only one who says so. I have challenged members on the other side of the House repeatedly to name me one supplier of health products in South Africa that will support them in regard to the differentiation of health services.

I am very pleased to see that the State President is here, because even at this late stage I want to plead for the scrapping of differentiation in health services. This differentiation is not going to work; on the contrary, it is going to be a failure. Above all, in health and health care it is important that there should be a spirit of compassion, of helping people and of being concerned about a patient. I should like to tell the hon member for Durban Point that I will get up from a sick bed to go and help a patient.

While that is the case, however, we cannot differentiate among the races and discriminate in this regard. No amount of differentiation will bring equal health services. It is with this in mind that I want to ask the hon the Minister to explain something he said to me yesterday. This is the only time today that I will be a little difficult with the hon the Minister. I refer the hon the Minister to the speech he made last night when he said the following:

Does the hon Minister seek to imply by that that this is the reason for differentiating in health services on the basis of colour among the various races? That is the apparent implication of what he said. He also said the following:

*The way I understand the Constitution, combating tuberculosis is a general affair. It ought to fall under the Minister of National Health and Population Development and I therefore hope that that hon Minister will not listen to the hon the Minister for Health Services and Welfare. He must accord the combating of tuberculosis as high a priority as any other Minister in this country. Now the hon the Minister says that there are scientific grounds for this differentiation and that that goes for practically the whole world.

I am not going to cause trouble today, but I think the hon the Minister will agree with me that that standpoint is quite wrong. The hon the Minister should know that there are few diseases which occur only among certain race groups. I want to ask the hon the Minister which diseases in South Africa occur only among the Coloureds due to the fact that they are Coloureds. Which diseases occur among the Asiatics due to the fact that they are Asiatics. What I can tell the hon the Minister is that in the White community itself there are diseases which occur only among certain groups. In the Jewish community one finds Tay Sachs disease as well as Gaucher’s disease which are genetic problems. They are hereditary and occur in a certain group, but not as a result of colour.

I am therefore asking the hon the Minister if there is a disease among the various race groups which justifies the own affairs system. For each one that the hon the Minister can mention, I can mention 100 which justify general affairs in regard to health. That is what I can do.

Therefore I do not think the hon the Minister clarified that aspect and I am still waiting for a statement from the NP that the doctors of South Africa and the rest of the world will accept as a justification for own affairs. I think it is quite unacceptable and I appeal to the hon the Minister and the State President to please go into this matter in depth and to try and do away with it. [Interjections.]

†Let me tell hon members that the privatisation of health services is no different to nationalisation. Somebody—the man in the street—still has to pay. This is what concerns me about the Government’s privatisation idea. No one has really spelled out who is going to pay for the privatisation of health services. Who is going to pay for it? That must be made clear because in the final analysis it is still the man in the street who has to pay for his own health care.

What is hoped for—and here I think the hon the Minister will agree with me—is that the service provided will be professional and more economically efficient, and that facilities, equipment and personnel will be better utilised and therefore more economical.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip.

I want to sound a warning because if this is not successful, privatisation will result in increased health costs. Who pays at present for our health? First of all, the State pays, and it does so via the taxpayer. Secondly, medical schemes pay, again via the taxpayer. Thirdly, the patient pays. He is also a taxpayer. Then there are also certain private enterprises such as mining houses with their own hospitals and their own doctors which are making a very valuable contribution.

In this regard I see an opportunity for the development of privatisation. Other sources should also be found to contribute towards paying for our health services. I think the hon the Minister will agree with me that free enterprise means free enterprise. We cannot afford to have rigid legislation which restricts people from helping to make contributions in this respect and which restricts the way in which health services can be privatised.

I thus see a great opportunity here of broadening the base of those who help to pay for the health services in our South African system. I want to suggest that big companies such as insurance companies, with their ample funds and their know-how, and financial institutions such as banks and building societies should be given the opportunity of providing financial assistance with regard to health services. When we can convince the wealthy to provide better schemes for themselves more money will become available.

What the Government must try to do in order to provide money to pay for Third World health services is to get the First World to pay more. This is the only way in which the Government can provide more money for health services.

The hon the Minister said yesterday that the privatisation of health services will continue and that the State will only interfere if the private sector is, firstly, not willing to provide the service or secondly, is unable to provide it. With that I cannot help but agree, because otherwise it will become impossible.

On the other hand, private involvement in health services can only succeed if the Government allows it to succeed. The Government must adapt its laws and methods to serve this purpose. At present the Medical Schemes Act is rigid and basically allows only for service payments. Owing to this fee for service rigidity the public are not allowed to buy a scheme that they themselves prefer, for example, a scheme that will allow for a no-claim situation or a scheme that will provide them with various ways of meeting their own health requirements. [Interjections.]

The third and final argument in this regard is that there must be tax relief, according to the amount of money spent on health provision. The Government today allows the public a rebate of 15% of the taxable income spent on pension schemes. I think the Government must allow similar tax relief for health cost provision. That would also stimulate the public to provide the financial aid that is needed to pay for the privatisation of our services and for better health for all South Africans.

Mr Chairman, I apologise to the hon member for Parktown for not debating various issues with him.

For some years now I have been lodging a plea for a certain matter in this House, in this debate and under this department, something I want to reiterate this year and on which I want to place strong emphasis. It has something of a history, and I want to trace it to the Parliamentary coffee lounge and dining room. There one can get a drink which, for the purposes of this debate, I want to call a health drink. I am referring to the “steelworks”.

I wonder how many hon members present here know the history or legend of the “steelworks”. History would have it that in the early twenties there was a Parliamentarian who was very concerned about a matter that was very dear to his heart, the fact that South Africa’s iron ore had to be sent overseas at the time in order to be processed. Thereafter it came back, and we had to buy back our own iron and steel.

Each year that hon member lodged a plea about the need for South Africa to have its own iron-ore processing installation so as to save those enormous amounts of foreign exchange. He also emphasised very strongly that people should think about the thousands and thousands of individuals who could obtain work in such an industry. He said that they would be known as the steel workers of South Africa. One propitious year—in the twenties—he again lodged his plea, and when the relevant Minister replied to the debate, he said that the Cabinet had again considered the matter a short while previously and had decided that South Africa would obtain its own steel-processing industry. That is how Iscor was brought into being at the time in Pretoria.

After so many years the hon member had been so tired-out by all his struggles and pleas that he could hardly believe that it was actually happening. What he experienced was heartfelt relief at the answer he received from the relevant Minister—so relieved that he stormed out of the House and made a beeline for the coffee lounge. There was nothing on his mind at that time but steel and steel workers. Arriving in the coffee lounge, he told the waiter who came along to serve him: “Bring me a steelworks”. Legend has it that the waiter went to the barman and asked for a steelworks. The barman, of course, wanted to know what on earth that was, but the waiter said he did not know. The barman sent him back to ask the hon member what a steelworks was, but the hon member merely persisted: “You bring me a steelworks!” Together the waiter and the barman concocted a drink which was then served to the hon member. We all know that drink as the steelworker.

I must say that my voters find it very interesting when they and their children visit Parliament and I take them to the coffee lounge for refreshments. I usually tell the children that nowhere else in the world will they find a place where they will be served a steelworks. [Interjections.] Yes, and how they enjoy and appreciate it! The children leave here with lovely memories of their impressive experience here at Parliament and also of the nicest cooldrink in the world—a steelworks. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I now come to a matter for which I lodge a plea in this debate each year. As a basis let me take the home for senior citizens in my constituency, Meyerton.

There are 86 senior citizens very happily housed there. There are, however, a further 300 applications on the waiting list; 300 senior citizens are waiting for admission to that home. Why is that? It is because—this is one of the major reasons—it is becoming increasingly difficult for the aged who live in their own homes, whether it be their own property or a house they are renting, to keep their heads above water. The chief causes of this are the high rates, expensive electricity, costly lighting, expensive levies, expensive service charges, etc.

Having a waiting list similar to the one containing 300 names is probably something that is common to all the old-age homes in our country. At all these homes there are long waiting lists containing the names of people who want accommodation there because they can no longer make ends meet in the face of high living costs and can no longer keep their homes and properties going.

I did a quick calculation. This is theoretical, but let us suppose that these 300 applicants could be accommodated if sufficient buildings were erected across the country to house them all. According to my information, for each of these category A residents of these homes a per capita subsidy of R134 per month is paid to the home. That means that a married couple, a husband and wife, have R268 per month paid to the home. We therefore know what it costs the hon the Minister and his department, and we are grateful for that.

We are also very grateful for this institution that we have received in Meyerton. The people there are doing well—in fact exceptionally well. They are very happy.

Now I want to link up with an argument the hon member for Koedoespoort brought to the fore yesterday evening. He was not arguing on the basis of any new principle, because the principle of a subsidy to the people living in those homes has already been laid down. So as I have said, there is no new principle involved. It is merely an extension of the principle. At the moment an amount of R134 per month per resident is being paid in the A category, R205 per month per resident in the B category and R393 per month per resident in the C category. I want to ask what the possibility is of the hon the Minister—he knows the department and has been entrusted with the own affairs of the Whites—trying, within the framework of the department, and bearing in mind the availability of funds for his department at present and in the future, to extend this subsidy even further to embrace aged senior citizens living in their own homes, whether it be their own property or merely rented accommodation. I want to link up with this by quoting a lovely passage headed “Care of the Aged” in the department’s annual report:

To the passage from the report I want to link the matter I have just been advocating, that of the subsidising of people in their own dwellings. This does not mean any additional funds, but merely the transferring of existing funds, because the demand for homes for the aged would decrease in accordance with their capacity to remain in their own homes. I shall be lodging this plea each year. I think the hon the Minister will come to believe that my case does have some merit.

I want to make a final request to the hon the Minister, and in this case he will have to consult a few of his colleagues. Last week a great deal of damage was done at the Meyerton home—the fence was damaged, there were thefts and the residents’ cars were badly damaged. Do we not owe it to the senior citizens of South Africa to offer them nothing less than an optimum feeling of security, safety and certainty?

I wondered whether it was not possible to place three national servicemen at each of these institutions—here the hon the Minister will have to consult his colleagues. They will each work an eight-hour shift and look after the security of these homes for senior citizens.

I know that an immediate problem would be the accommodation for these national servicemen, but every community will have to do its share in this connection to offer the young men accommodation. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Meyerton told us a good story about “steel works”. I agree with him that it is a delicious drink and I think it is also good for the nerves.

I want to tell the hon member for Pine-town that I think it is a good arrangement for the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition to bring him in towards the end of the debate, because then he is far more responsible than at the start of a debate.

I only have five minutes at my disposal, and in that time I want to exchange a few views about the direction which medical care in the RSA has taken. I want to point out a few problems and exchange views about what I think should be done to deal with the problem.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg-North also referred to the problem we have that insufficient money is spent on preventive services in this country. There is nothing wrong with the aim of providing the people of South Africa with the best possible health service, but if we continue in practice to try to render the ideal service across the entire spectrum, we are heading for trouble, because we simply cannot afford it. Unfortunately I do not have the time at my disposal to elaborate on this.

The day will come—as a matter of fact it is already here—when we will have to ask ourselves what we must do to contend with the crisis in connection with the financing of medical services. This is a problem not only in this country, but throughout the developing world.

We must not change our objective. We must not adjust the sights through which we are aiming to provide everyone with health services. The question is whether our strategy to achieve that goal is in line with the present circumstances and our requirements and whether it is financially feasible.

If we look back over history, we see that since the days of the mission doctors the provision of service at the medical level has always been aimed at the curative. Those men were well educated in surgery, gynaecology and medicine. They rendered a service which was hospital-orientated and doctor-centralised. The patients of that time beat a path to the doors of the mission stations and so overwhelmed the doctors with work that they in fact became obsessed with the sick people, and learnt very little about “public health”. As a matter of fact they looked past the potentially sick patient.

What was the result? We developed a service which here and there makes one think that one is living in a First World country. I do not want to talk now about the fine health service which was established in this country and is being maintained here. It is a monumental piece of work, but we paid a price in the process.

Matters have taken such a course that a small percentage of the people of this country are very well protected against diseases as a result of particularly favourable socioeconomic conditions. These are the same small group of people who have the best curative services, whereas the largest percentage of people are for well-known reasons particularly exposed to diseases, but also have relatively poor curative services. In other words, an imbalance has developed, and I maintain that our policy has resulted in our being caught with the most expensive health service supply situation imaginable. We cannot afford it.

We cannot go on like this, because the State cannot afford it. I think we shall have to reconsider the building of large hospitals and we shall have to decide whether we have not built the last Groote Schuur Hospital and whether we have not built the last large general hospital in Johannesburg. Let the private sector provide their hospitals, but let those people also realise that the money which must come from the patients’ pockets to pay for treatment in a private hospital, is not unlimited either. We cannot afford the super luxurious in this country any longer.

If we want to provide health services for everyone, we must take the following factors into consideration: Every member of the population must have an equal opportunity to share in the health service which is rendered. The service provided must meet the requirements of the patient and the population group. The individual is more important than the organisation, and prevention is better than cure. I think we must take these factors into consideration when we want to enlarge the preventive services in future.

Mr Chairman, I should like to turn to the question of pensions, although I would have liked to have followed up some of the matters raised by the hon member for Rustenburg and particularly the question of the cost of medicine raised by the hon member for Parktown. It is all very well to say that if one wants a Mercedes one has to pay for it and cannot expect to pay the price of an Anglia. However, if one cannot afford to buy a Mercedes, then one has to make do with what one can afford. This is the problem. Medicine is being priced out of the reach of the average working man in South Africa.

To all of us who serve on the Joint Committee on Pension Benefits it is obvious that the present situation cannot continue. However, that is not the subject of this debate; that is the subject which the Committee is investigating. So, what I say now, is said in the full knowledge and with full responsibility in the knowledge that we cannot continue to afford in South Africa to pay out of State funds the amount that will be needed for the number of people who will be social old age pensioners by the turn of the century. In the meantime we have to deal with reality. On the assumption that we shall be able to find solutions which will, in 15 or 20 years’ time, start to reduce the number of people who will be dependent on social pensions and social grants for disability, etc, we still have to face the situation as it exists now.

Firstly, there is the effect of inflation on present pensioners. Everyone must have the same experience. This thick file here contains just my correspondence on pensioners since the beginning of this year. When one reads these letters one sees that the tragedy which is revealed there is a real one. It is no use coming along and simply saying: “Give them more, give them more”. There is a limit to what one can give. However, there are two suggestions I want to make.

The first one is in regard to the means test. Pensions have increased, but never or very seldom as much as inflation. They are still trailing behind the inflation rate. These increases are trailing way behind rentals in particular. However, the means test has gone up very little in comparison. It has gone up this year from R180 to R198, which represents an increase of 10%. The inflation rate alone is running at 20%, and the increase in housing is anything from 25% to 50%.

And 40%!

I said 50%. I have had cases where the increase in rent amounted to 60%, and that increase was granted by the rent board; not by a landlord but by a rent board. It is becoming impossible for these people to exist! However, what is worse is that the present system, like the fiscal system, can force people to live in sin. I know of one case of a disabled man who used to hold a high position in society and who was respected. He has served his country but he has now become disabled and cannot work. He is below pensionable age, but he would qualify for a disability grant. His wife works, however, and earns R900 per month. Because he is disabled, only 25% of that salary is calculated for the application of the means test. However, that calculation brings the applicable amount to R225, which puts him beyond the means test limit of R198.

If this couple do as they are considering doing, namely getting divorced and carrying on living together in sin, he will get a disability grant. Because they are married and because his wife is earning R900 gross, he does not qualify for that grant. However, by the time tax and medical aid contributions, as well as unemployment insurance and all the other relevant amounts are deducted, she brings home something well under R800 per month, which falls within the means test. Those deductions are, however, not deductible in applying the means test.

What this in fact means, is that we are telling that man that he should divorce his wife and then the State will give him a disability grant. It is because they are married that he does not qualify for any assistance at all. He was a man with a high standing in society. He owns a home which has been paid for in full, but his rates go up, his electricity and water accounts go up, and they simply cannot survive. In my constituency this is happening every day.

There was another tragic case the other day of an elderly lady who jumped from the 12th floor of a building. Those suicides are indicative of the reality of what is happening to many of these old people. This happened to be a person whom I knew well. The pressure and the tension in her situation became too great.

For this reason I say let us look again at the means test. Today it is a sanction against saving, because the person who has been thrifty and has put away something for his old age is penalised today because he has saved.

Yes!

It is the person who was a spendthrift who now comes to the State for aid who gets a pension. That is the first point I wish to make.

The other point I do not have time to elaborate upon concerns the subsidy system for old age homes, particularly the category A, B and C allocations. I do not have time to quote them, but in terms of the range of the allocations, old age homes, by manipulating the number of frail aged people and fit old people in the home, can increase their subsidy income very much higher than that of a home which accepts people as they come.

For instance, there is a limitation on the number of social workers, with one qualified nurse per 15 frail inmates. This means that if there are 45 or more frail inmates, there must be three qualified nurses. They each have to have their own unqualified nursing assistants and it just goes on and on. I would therefore recommend to the hon the Minister and his department that they look at the memorandum which Tafta, the Association for the Aged in Durban has submitted to his department. These people are real experts. They do a fantastic job and they have motivated a case here which should be looked at in order to eliminate, firstly, the problems and the difficulties surrounding the subsidy calculations and requirements for the three categories—A, B and C—of residents of old age homes. The second aspect is the home service which, although doubled, can save the department millions if it is exploited more. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall be covering some of the points raised by the hon member for Durban Point, particularly with regard to the means test, a little later on because I agree with him that there is a need to reformulate the means test.

With reference to this budget, one of the major obligations of this Committee is to provide for the aged. Looking at this budget, we see that it amounts to R443 million and we shall vote an additional R26,5 million in the supplementary estimates.

I think it is true to say that Whites—and this is the group we are concerned with here—have a better opportunity of providing for their old age than do the other groups because the vast majority of working Whites belong to pension and provident funds. They are given attractive tax concessions to do so and of course these tax concession apply to all but they are more attractive to people who are earning higher salaries than to those who are earning lower salaries.

Despite these concessions, however, and despite the fact that so many Whites belong to pension and provident funds, it is a matter of concern to me that so many Whites in South Africa are not financially self-reliant when they retire. They either have to rely on family or they have to continue working or they rely on the social old age pension. The social old age pension was never meant to be anything more than a supplement to one’s existing income. Unfortunately for too many, the social old age pension is the only provision they have. One can pity those who have to rely on the social old age pension. In 1981 that pension was R116 per month. In October this year, that pension will amount to R194 per month. This represents an increase of 67%. Over that five year period, the consumer price index has risen by 80% and so in fact they have tended to lose out. However, it is not only those people who did not provide for their old age who are losing out. There are others, and they are going to be relying on us too.

The person who actually thinks he has provided for his retirement finds out that with an inflation rate of 12% the purchasing power of his income is reduced by two thirds in 10 years. That is at 12%. In 20 years’ time, it is reduced by 90%. There are many people who are retiring now who will in fact live for a further 20 years. With an inflation rate of 16% or 17%, the answer is very simple. One cannot afford to retire or, if one does, one cannot afford to live for too long.

The question is: Is this necessary? Can the problem be solved? I believe it can. It is very interesting to note that in the United States in the 1950s it was estimated that something like 60% of the aged were living below the poverty datum line. Everything is relative, however, and the last figure I saw pertaining to the poverty datum line for married couples in the United States was of the order of $6 500 per annum. That is about R13 000 per annum. When one looks at the latest figures, however, it is very interesting to note that only 14,1% of aged Americans live below the poverty datum line. That is even less than for the population as a whole and most of those who fall into that category are females who have not had the opportunity to belong to a pension fund because they did not work.

Obviously, we cannot borrow everything from the USA but we can learn from what they have done and from their mistakes. What is interesting to me, is that in the past 20 years the American Government has created a web of pension funds. It is interesting to see how the aged in America get their income. Seven percent of the pension income received comes from pension funds for State and local government employees, 17% from pension funds established by private employers and 76% from the social security system. It is estimated that the social security system provides over half of the total income, namely pension income and investment income received by the retired in America. If it was not for that, something like 60% of the retired people would be living below the poverty datum line.

Obviously, we cannot do everything in South Africa in the same way they do but one lesson seems obvious to me. Until one establishes a contributory pension system on a national basis—I am not talking of a national pension scheme; I am talking about a system whereby it is obligatory for everybody to belong to a pension fund—the problem of providing financially for the aged in South Africa is not going to be solved.

We cannot rely purely on people doing it voluntarily. In the USA 40% of the working population belong to private pension funds but they provide only 17% of the pension income received by them. It was the contributory system—and it is compulsory for both the employer and the employee to contribute—which solved the problem. Unless we make it compulsory for every working South African to contribute to a pension fund, we are merely condemning the majority of the aged in South Africa, irrespective of their colour, to live in poverty. I think that is one thing we can do.

What else can we do? We have to stop encouraging wastage. According to the latest figures I saw, those of 1981—that is the latest year for which we have figures—R364 million was withdrawn from pension funds. If that merely kept pace with inflation, then the amount would have been approximately R700 million in 1985. The significance of that is that this year it is going to cost us R470 million to provide for the White aged in South Africa.

We have to ask ourselves whether we can continue with a tax system which actually encourages one to withdraw one’s pension. Upon withdrawal the first R1 800 is free of tax and the balance is taxed at a very favourable rate. Contributors are given tax advantages to provide for their retirement. Why should the system of taxation encourage them not to use the money for that purpose?

The second thing I want to suggest—the hon member for Durban Point was quite correct in this regard—is that we have to reformulate the means test. We must ask ourselves whether it encourages or discourages people to provide for themselves. [Interjections.]

There is a very interesting point to note. If one receives R90 per month from a pension fund, one can claim the full social old age pension of R180 per month. One then receives R270 per month if one is a single person. However, if one gets R200 per month from a pension fund, one cannot claim the social old age pension. Someone who provided less adequately for his retirement is better off than someone who provided more adequately! That is a daft system. We in fact penalise people who belong to pension schemes!

Under the present means test, if I have R28 000 in investments, am single and have invested in participation mortgage bonds, even at today’s low rates of interest, I get R350 per month. I can claim a full social old age pension of R180 per month because my assets are less than R28 000. My total income will then be R530 per month. A single person who receives R200 per month from a private pension fund does not qualify for a social old age pension. How can we encourage people to provide for their retirement via pension funds?

I said earlier that the present means test is daft. In fact, it is dangerous. The means test is in need of urgent reform, and I agree with the hon member for Durban Point that we have to do something about it.

Each year it becomes more and more difficult to solve the problem of providing financially for the aged. It is more difficult today than it was ten years ago; it is more difficult today than it was five years ago; and hon members know the hash-up we made when we tried to do it five years ago. The longer we delay the more difficult it will become. The sooner we tackle this problem the better, because if we do not tackle it, future generations will condemn us as legislators for our lack of foresight and our lack of courage—and justly so!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Edenvale made a very good contribution to the debate, and I think that the idea of compulsory pension funds and the proposal to prohibit people from doing away with the pension contributions paid out to them before their retirement, in particular, are aspects which most decidedly deserve attention.

We are living in times in which family murders have become an alarming phenomenon. Hardly a week has gone by recently without one reading the following kind of headlines in newspapers. I have before me examples of two newspapers containing such reports. On 9 May the headlines in Beeld were: “Gesinsmoorde eis 6” and another incident in my constituency: “Kind en daarna homself gehang.” During the same month an article under the heading “Jong vrou skiet twee kinders; toe haarself ’ appeared in another newspaper.

This is an alarming phenomenon in our community. In fact, it is estimated that 100 people in South Africa died in this way during the period from 1 July 1984 to approximately August 1985. This figure is higher than that for the previous 18 years. And so there is an alarming increase in family murders. Someone once made the observation that every family murder is really a comment on the society. I want to link up with that, and I think it is a phenomenon which deserves our urgent attention. It is a phenomenon which also deserves the urgent attention of the State.

There are many reasons which give rise to this phenomenon, but I think one sees a general trend in all these cases and it should also be addressed accordingly. It seems to me as if very deep depression is an underlying factor in family murders; not the depression as such, but the inability to handle it. I think we should really make a job of establishing institutions—let us call them crisis clinics—in regard to this matter. I know such crisis clinics do in fact exist, but there should be institutions where these persons can be taught to cope with and to work through this deep depression. I think we are playing with fire if we do not do this. I even want to go so far as to say I think this kind of information on dealing with depression should be available to everyone, because it can happen to anyone.

There is also a second underlying cause which gives rise to family murders, and that is marital problems. In connection with this I also want to point out the shortage in guidance on the inability to deal with such marital problems. In the joint committee which is paying attention to the Divorce Amendment Bill and the Family Courts Bill, one aspect came strongly to the fore out of the mass of evidence, and that is the tremendous lack of marriage guidance in South Africa. I cannot be emphatic enough about this, and we should also pay very urgent attention to it.

It is very clear that the vast majority of South Africans do not have the vaguest clue of what marriage is all about, and the relevant role of the husband and wife. I therefore want to say once more that when I speak of marriage guidance, I do not mean marriage guidance for people who have already decided to get married. I think the matter needs to go much further back than that. We shall have to pay very serious attention to this particular facet.

There is another underlying factor, I think, which leads to family murders, and that is the fact that death has been romanticised. Perhaps the church is to blame in this regard. It is an interesting phenomenon that family murders in South Africa occur mainly amongst Whites, and then particularly amongst Afrikaans-speaking Whites. As I have said, one of the underlying causes of family murders is the romanticisation of death. Death is depicted as a release from this vale of tears, with all its suffering and grief. It happens of course that parents in a family start reasoning that it would be much better simply to depart from this earth and to go and live happily together in heaven. Naturally I do not find fault with that kind of reasoning per se. But I also think that it is the job of the church to point out the responsibilities attaching to the concept of life after death, so that we can move away from this romanticism about death, which also gives rise to family murders.

In the nature of things the economic climate, conditions of unemployment, and all the problems arising as a result are other basic causes of family murders. I think that this problem has been tackled very effectively by the State by way of job creation programmes and emergency aid schemes. But I think that special attention should nonetheless be given to the families of the unemployed and of people who are involved in emergency schemes because that in itself could lead to depression and to the problems I have been referring to.

I just want to raise one final idea here. I think we should also be much more positive. We have also been warned that the uncertainty in the country could lead to family murders. I think that we as politicians also have a responsibility to fulfil by pointing out once again that we do in fact have a fine future in this country we live in.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow on after the hon member for Randfontein. He touched on certain aspects which are very important, particularly those concerning family murders.

Mr Chairman, every civilised people in the world gladly takes care of the state of health of its aged. By the same token it is also the duty of every people in the civilised world also to see to the wellbeing of its youth. The youth of today are after all the leaders of tomorrow. It is the youth of today—and this really happens very quickly—who one of these days will be the leaders who will stand in the footprints of those who represent them in this House of Assembly and also in other areas of society today. Many of them will of course have to be in the frontlines.

When I speak of “leiers”, I should like to write it with an “ei”, precisely because this generation must do everything possible to prevent the future of the leaders of tomorrow having to be qualified by a “y” for “1yding”. It is the will of every people to want to survive; every people’s sacred duty to make every effort to see to it that all the necessities are made available to the youth so that they will be mentally and physically strong and prepared to be able to bear up against the difficult times ahead. Strong and healthy men and women will be needed in the future to be able to combat the problems that lie ahead. It is most certainly not going to be easy. It is nothing short of an absolute certainty that the problems in our fatherland today, will have a profound effect on our young people. There surely is no alternative, Mr Chairman. We also see, do we not, how the newspapers proclaim certain things. Many leading people are concerned about the future—not only members of this party, but also members of the Government party, for example Mr Hennie Klerck, who was recently quoted as follows in Rapport:

This is what Mr Hennie Klerck, ex-president of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut says. Mr Klerck goes on to say:

He then goes even further and says:

I now read the last quote:

That is what Mr Klerck says.

It is absolutely true. The process of impoverishment is the order of the day and it creates tremendous concern. Of course the youth should feel concerned about this because they feel themselves being brought down to a Third World level. Of course the youth should feel concerned because equal pay for the same work is no longer related to high productivity. The Brazilian situation Mr Klerck speaks about is the exact parallel of what could develop here. Of course the youth should be concerned when they cannot be sure that the expertise for which they are being trained, will not still be needed in this country in the future.

Expertise sometimes requires long and very expensive training, and our youth, who are predominantly patriotic, after all would surely not like to go and apply their expertise in another country. They are generally patriotic, and I think they generally feel that they would like to apply their expertise in this country. They really do not want to leave the country. Just as much as we would like to stay here, they want to stay here! This is obvious, surely.

The youth of course have reason to be concerned, because it is not certain that there will be work for them in the future. It is estimated that by the end of this century— this is only just a little more than 13 years away, and therefore just around the corner—that there will be 10 million unemployed. This is what has been written by those who have investigated this issue.

Of course the youth have reason to be concerned because not all the peoples who live in this country at present, bother about disciplined population growth. [Interjections.] It is after all the White youth of this country who will have to pay for the irresponsible family planning of others in the future. This we know, do we not!

Of course the youth are concerned about their own survival. They are concerned about whether it is sensible to bring another generation into this world in these critical conditions. A low White birth rate, which as passed the replacement rate, is still there.

I therefore want to lodge an appeal for assistance from institutions which finance approved youth centres, for example the church and municipal bodies. Whatever White bodies may be involved, I call upon them on behalf of everyone. It is saddening to see how many parents are in a position today where both parents are simply forced to work. This can have a detrimental effect on the child, for example irregular, and in many cases unhealthy eating habits which are not advantageous to the child’s health. For general health it is as essential to have a healthy mind as it is to have a healthy body.

It is very easy to say that children should be kept constructively occupied, and should be kept away from boredom and things which are not good for them. But do hon members know how expensive it is in these difficult times to provide the youth with facilities for constructive sporting activities to keep them occupied?

Undernourishment is another problem. Very serious consideration must be given to this. Could the department not co-operate more closely with schools and perhaps contribute to school feeding to help the schools? There are many examples which I can hold up. In my constituency, for example, a girl in std 9 ran to a teacher at her desk—she was almost crazed with hunger—and said: “Please, just give me something to eat!” That is where school feeding would be in order.

In every community there are always dear, good people who are prepared to do their bit, but we ask for more assistance to be offered.

I read in the annual report on page 18 that this department achieves a great deal, and I am very grateful for that. Due to the conditions reigning in the country, what is being done, is nowhere near enough. I want to lodge a serious appeal with the hon the Minister to use his influence—he has the influence—with the hon the Minister of Finance. When the hon the Minister of Finance presented his Budget speech, he made certain concessions to married couples who both work. But that concession is not enough.

It is never enough.

The hon member says it is never enough. He is correct, because it really is not enough.

It is after all honest to tax the husband and the wife separately. The husband and wife who work, should be taxed separately. This would get rid of a troublesome evil, because many young people who are forced to live together due to economic conditions, would be encouraged to enter into marriage earlier and to start a family sooner. These are serious matters which we must consider. I am pleased that we could also discuss this matter here.

There is concern amongst the youth, as the hon member for Randfontein mentioned. He spoke about suicides. Many suicides result from people having problems for which they see no solutions. I therefore want to associate myself with him by asking that more centres will be established to help those people too.

The people of South Africa are growing poorer by the day.

Oh!

We must realise that this is the case. [Interjections.] Anyone who says “Oh”, lives in an absolute fool’s paradise and does not know what is happening around him. [Interjections.] Anyone who wants to reduce this to the level of a light-hearted issue, is not someone who ought to be sitting in the highest council chamber in the land.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with some of the themes touched on by the hon member for Nigel. But right at the outset I want to indicate the importance of the question: Where does the responsibility lie?

On page 25 of the annualreport of the department it is emphasised very clearly that own affairs departments must manage the interests of a particular population group over a broader field, and not mainly perform one specific function like other State departments. In this respect own affairs departments differ from other State departments.

As far as the population development programme is concerned—this refers to the growth of the population—there are, for example, particularly deep-rooted differences between the respective population groups. Reference is also made to the priorities, strategies and programmes of the different own affairs departments in this connection.

This afternoon I want to dwell for a moment on the problem of the declining White population. In this regard the Whites differ from all the non-White population groups. Only the population numbers of the Whites are declining.

Before I get to that I want to refer briefly to the position in Canada, because the NP frequently considers it essential that what is done and said here must be linked to what is happening abroad. In an American magazine it is reported:

Consequently the position prevailing in Canada also prevails here. Except that here the problem is infinitely greater. Our position cannot even be compared with that in Canada.

That is why right at the outset I want to emphasise and state in this Committee that the growth of a nation stands still if there is an average annual natural increase of 1,7% per woman during the fertility period. As far as the Whites in South Africa are concerned, we already reached this position in 1977. Seven years later, in 1984, that figure had already dropped to 0,78% per year. This is almost half of what it was. Within seven years the growth rate of the Whites dropped by almost half! I do not think there is a population group in the world whose numbers have declined at this rate. In 1983 the Sunday Express referred in a caption to “the vanishing White tribe—the Afrikaners hardest hit as birth rate plummets. Schools, then the army will soon feel the pinch”.

Notice that it is particularly the Afrikaner who has been hardest hit of all the component parts of the White population here in South Africa. I admit that there are other factors too, but it is specifically the economic factor of the impoverishment of the Whites which has led to the state of affairs that the Afrikaner’s numbers are declining like this.

That is absolute nonsense!

Wait a moment. Who says so? It is the HSRC which says so, and the HSRC is a left-wing organisation. [Interjections.] In November 1984 the HSRC reported that a salary of R6 830 per year in 1973 had risen to R24 055 in 1984. It had risen to almost four times as much, but the buying power of the higher amount was 18% less than that of the salary in 1973.

The HSRC quoted the PE Corporate Service which was quoted in the Sunday Tribune of 7 October 1984:

Consequently these are not HNP stories; they are HSRC stories.

Will the hon member answer a question?

No, I only have five minutes.

These are HSRC stories. These are not stories either, because this has been proved scientifically. The HSRC went on to say—and other organisations also emphasise this—that there are two factors in particular in the impoverishment process of the Whites. In Rapport of February 1980 it is stated that Prof Jan Sadie of Stellenbosch—he taught me and apparently he is a Prog—said that the total births per White woman dropped by 30% between 1970 and 1978. His finding was, and I quote: "… dat die resessie ná 1974 hierin te bespeur is”.

Then Jan Sadie went on—I cannot quote everything—and emphasised that the drop in the White population almost ran parallel to a depression and an impoverishment of the Whites. [Interjections.] Jan Sadie is a Prog and he is at Stellenbosch!

The difficulties experienced with the housing programme is one of the two factors to which I have just referred. Hon members spoke for days on end about the difficult housing problems. It is difficult for young people to find accommodation and obviously it is difficult to raise a family without a house. A second important factor is working women.

That is nonsense!

It is not nonsense! That hon member must keep quiet! [Interjections.]

Now I want to ask the hon the Minister something. His own report says that his department is responsible for strategies, plans and ideas regarding what must be done. Because that hon Minister now has the responsibility, I want to ask him this afternoon what plans he has. Has he or anyone in his department or in his Government thought about these problems yet? Or are they so unfeeling about the survival of the Afrikaner people and their declining numbers that they do not care? [Interjections.]

There sits the hon the Minister. He has the means, the power and the expert staff. He can give instructions to the HSRC and go into this problem in depth. This afternoon I am asking him to rise to his feet in this Committee and give us an indication of whether he has thought about this at all and whether he has any intention of doing something about this.

We have a depression and many other problems in South Africa, but this problem is one of the very worst, and the Government is not doing anything about it. If it continues to do nothing about it, we accuse it of being thick-skinned and indifferent to the survival of the Afrikaner and the Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just resumed his seat, unleashed another tirade about the impoverishment of the people, particularly the Afrikaners, but to me he looks considerably more affluent than he was when I met him 20 years ago in Parliament. [Interjections.] That is my reply to his speech. [Interjections.]

It is already clear to me that it would be an impossible task to reply at this stage to all the hon members who participated in this debate. I did make notes of their speeches, and I undertake to go through their Hansards. I shall in due course provide the hon members whom I am unable to reply to this afternoon with a reply. I apologise for that.

I would be failing in my duty if I did not mention the fact that this debate is being conducted on a very high level, and I am very grateful for that. Even my good friend opposite, the hon member for Parktown, who seemed to want to stir things up a little yesterday evening, made a very responsible speech this afternoon. I thank him for that.

†The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North made a few valid points in his speech yesterday. I agree with him that we are at present not spending enough on preventative medicine. It is our objective to increase this expenditure by at least 10%. The private sector can no longer concentrate on short-term surgery alone. Its involvement must include the whole spectrum of health services. Medical practitioners in the private sector tend to want to choose those jobs and perform those operations which are expensive, and leave the rest to be done by the State. That tendency should be curbed as soon as possible.

He also made the plea that not all unoccupied hospital beds should be used for geriatric patients. That was never our intention. Only beds which cannot be used for other patients will be used for this purpose. There are also other patients who may occupy these beds.

The hon member also referred to the hospital at Estcourt. I can give hon members the assurance that only one department or administration will be responsible for the running of a specific hospital.

Good!

Other groups represented in the hospital will certainly have a say in the hospital’s management.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North also referred extensively to the abuse of alcohol. It is true that alcohol abuse and alcoholism present major problems not only in our South African society but world-wide. We must keep in mind that alcoholism itself is only the tip of the iceberg. The consequences of alcohol abuse, for instance road accidents, child abuse and mental disruption, do the most harm.

I am happy to announce that we now have the first evidence of success in our battle against alcoholism and the abuse of other substances. Drugs are also part of the problem. May I mention that there are also people who abuse food? Food, if it is abused, is as dangerous as alcohol. [Interjections.]

Cigarettes as well! [Interjections.]

In 1982, 6 085 patients were admitted to private rehabilitation centres and 1 304 to State rehabilitation centres. In 1985 only 4 292 patients were admitted to private centres and 1 192 to State centres. This decrease has been attributed to the success of preventative programmes and the encouragement of a healthy South African style of life.

It is interesting to note that this took place during a time of the increasing availability of wine and beer in, for example, supermarkets. Alcoholism did not increase as a result of this freer availability of these beverages.

Well, I think one must be careful about saying that …

Unfortunately the hon member for Umbilo is not here, but I did undertake to refer to a speech which he made during the Second Reading debate. He referred specifically to the care of the aged. He had certain reservations about the printed Budget. As it was technically impossible to adjust the printed estimates, certain announcements made by the hon the Minister of Finance during his Budget Speech were not reflected in the printed Budget. These include the improvement of social pensions and allowances. An amount of R26,56 million was allocated to the Administration: House of Assembly for this specific purpose. Due to the shortage of time I shall not go into particulars as to how this amount is divided up.

The hon member for Umbilo is at the Indaba.

Well, good luck to him and the Indaba. The remaining R2,299 million will be used for the adjustment of the means test. As regards the abolition of the means test for World War I veterans, according to the calculations of the department based on information supplied by the Military Veterans’ Administration and the South African Legion an additional 1 453 veterans may be involved. This will entail additional expenditure of R4,3 million.

There is also the 2% suspension of expenditure in terms of section 8 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, and the last item not included in the printed Budget is the amount available for the improvement of service conditions.

Mr Chairman, since the figures which the hon the Minister has given are double the actual number, will he increase the pensions which they will be receiving? Those figures are not the legion’s figures.

I will not undertake to increase the pensions, but I will revise my-figures.

I promised the hon member for Bezuidenhout that I would also reply to a matter which he raised … [Interjection.]

Order! The hon member for Sasolburg has had a turn to speak.

… during the Second Reading debate.

A war veteran’s pension is paid in accordance with the Social Pensions Act of 1973. To war veterans who have rendered full time war service, apart from the veterans who participated in the Anglo Boer War, World War I as well as protesting burgers, the same means test applied as for old age pensioners. The only difference is in the qualifying age. For war veterans the qualifying age is 60 years whereas the qualifying age for an old age pensioner is 60 years for females and 65 years for males. The reason for this difference is that it was felt at that time that these veterans could have been subjected to severe stress during their military service and that an earlier qualifying age was therefore justified. With the inception of war veterans’ pensions in 1941 the same amount was paid to veterans and old age pensioners. As from 1 April 1943 an additional amount of R2,30 was added to the maximum pension payable to war veterans. This was done in appreciation for the sacrifices made for their country. This additional amount has been increased as follows: On 1 April 1948 with R8 per month, and from 1 October 1981 with R15 per month. It will therefore be noted that this additional amount has been adjusted periodically as and when funds could be found for this particular purpose. It will therefore be appreciated that war veterans and military pensioners differ markedly and cannot be compared with each other.

*I want to come back to the hon member for Pietersburg. I did not reply to him fully yesterday evening and unfortunately I only discovered it afterwards. The matter he discussed was children from cystic fibrosis. As a result of representations previously made to the Cape Provincial Administration by the former Department of Health and Welfare, these children were treated free of charge. It recently came to our attention that this facility had been withdrawn, and we then made representations for this facility to be reinstated.

The newsletter of the National Council for Mental Health, to which the hon member also referred and in which integration of services is advocated, also came to my attention. I have already written to the president of the council to ask him whether the newsletter reflects the policy of his council, because as the matter is stated in that newsletter, it is contrary to the department’s policy on the development of welfare services, which is reflected in circulars of the department.

The hon member will permit me to reply later to his question concerning disability pensions. He asked why pensions of this kind had increased to such an extent lately. I can tell him that it is as a result of the present economic situation, for when there is a recession in the economy and people have to be retrenched, the first people to be retrenched are those whose health is not what it ought to be. That is why there was a tremendous increase in such pensions, particularly among the Coloured population.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he is now indicating that when people are retrenched and there is unemployment, they can be regarded as disabled according to the Act, and therefore qualify for those pensions?

Yes. There are many people who are still working, in spite of the fact that they are totally disabled, because they were able to earn more in that way. When such a person is discharged and a district surgeon declares him unfit for employment, my department has no choice but to grant him a disability pension.

†Much has been said about the financial predicament of welfare organisations. I have sympathy with the welfare organisations, especially as there are definite indications that successful results have been obtained by welfare programmes. I am not referring to the welfare programmes of private organisations only, but also to those of State departments. In seeking solutions to the financial plight of welfare organisations, one should, however, not rely on increased subsidies only. Several hon members have referred to the need for better administration, and last night I also referred to the need for the better management of institutions. The Fund-Raising Act of 1978 describes the manner in which financial statements of welfare organisations are to be prepared so that they reflect the adequacy of the management. The Act also makes provision for the financial statements of these organisations to lie for inspection by the public for certain prescribed periods. I want to urge contributors to take an interest in these statements and in the affairs of the organisations they choose to support.

*The hon member Dr Venter also referred to the subsidisation of social workers, and to the recommendation of the so-called norms committee in this connection. I should like to convey my appreciation to her for the very important contribution that the representatives of the private sector made to the work of this committee. In general the recommendations of the committee were accepted by the department, and work is in progress on the possible implementation of the proposals of the committee. The hon member will realise however that once again it is a question of a shortage of funds and that we cannot at this stage implement the recommendations in full.

†The hon member for Hillbrow referred to the whole problem … He may remain seated where he is. I can see him perfectly well there. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Hillbrow referred to the whole problem of smoking. Strangely enough, I fully endorse every word that he said. [Interjections.] It has been decided by the management committee that in my department smoking shall be prohibited during meetings, in the corridors and in the lifts. [Interjections.] The primary health strategy against smoking is being formulated by the Sub-committee for Health Promotion of the Health Matters Advisory Committee.

Oh shucks, Vause! [Interjections.]

If I could only relieve that hon member of the habit, I would be very pleased indeed! [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Witbank advocated the devolution of welfare services to local authorities. Of course devolution implies— the hon member realises this—that decision-making must take place on a level as close as possible to the point at which the service is being rendered. This is an established principle which is taken into consideration throughout in the development of new constitutional structures. The matter is being very thoroughly investigated, however, and will receive the necessary attention during the process of constitutional development.

†The hon member for Durban Point referred last night to teaching hospitals and I undertook to give him some figures in that regard. I really cannot understand why he had difficulty in obtaining the figures relating to these teaching hospitals. I have a faint suspicion that he did not take much trouble over it because I obtained them within five minutes this morning. He should have asked me long ago; then he would have had the information. [Interjections.] There are 11 primary teaching hospitals with a total of 14 503 beds. Would the hon member like to have all the particulars?

No, I have the total number of beds. I should like to know which are teaching beds?

Well, this is the total number of beds in teaching hospitals.

Are they all teaching beds?

They are all teaching beds. I could give the hon member the particulars, but it would take some time to read them out to him. I have them here, however.

The hon member also referred to ambulance services. These services are controlled by the provincial administrations at present. They remain a general affair and constitute one of the services which may be controlled by regional services councils. I agree wholeheartedly with him that the ambulance arriving on the scene first must render the required service, and I want to emphasise that. The ambulance that arrives first at the scene of an accident, or wherever it is required, must pick up the patients and take them to hospital wherever it may be. [Interjections.] As regards the AA Report on ambulances, I want to reassure the hon member that this report has received the necessary attention. Certain recommendations will be made to the National Health Policy Council at its next meeting.

He also referred to the old family practitioner and I endorse many of his sentiments in that regard. I also listened with a certain measure of nostalgia because that is the type of doctor that I used to be 20 years ago.

*The hon member for Wellington also devoted his speech to the problems of the aged. I should like to remedy certain misconceptions which may have arisen from my opening speech. No new hospitals are going to be built for the infirm aged. This is existing space which is not being utilised, and the argument that it will be expensive is difficult to understand because surely capital costs are being saved if we make use of this unutilised space.

Secondly, the rules in respect of this area for infirm aged will definitely not be the standard hospital rules. I give him that assurance. Consequently visiting hours will not be restricted to certain times. However, one must also take into account that regularity and order must prevail in such a place.

No attempt whatsoever is being made to include sick bays in old age homes. What we are dealing with here are additional facilities for those infirm aged who cannot be accommodated at present. This unutilised capacity is only for the infirm aged who are no longer able to stay in the community. No one will be forced to be admitted to such a hospital, and I would consider it a great pity if we were to stigmatise these places as being places to which we send people to die. That is most certainly not the intention.

I thank the hon member for Germiston District very sincerely for the compassion with which she referred to the role of nurses. I endorse the sentiments she expressed in this respect.

The hon member for Bethlehem requested that the department revise the subsidy system for children’s homes. What his request boiled down to was that two different amounts should be paid, one for the children’s homes operated according to the block system and one for those divided into family units according to the latest policy. Unfortunately it is not possible for me to indicate with certainty at this stage what the difference in the operating expenses of these two types of institutions is, but that there is a difference is true. I want to give the hon member the assurance, though, that I have already requested the department to investigate the possibility of expanding the existing children’s home subsidy scheme to make provision in this way for the two different types of institution. All things considered, separate subsidies for the two types of children’s homes will not be a solution to all the problems being experienced by children’s home administrations.

I also spoke here about after-care centres for the mentally handicapped, and I just want to tell him that the care of these children is a matter of great concern to us. The department’s offices in Bloemfontein and Bethlehem are at present giving attention to the project in Bethlehem, in co-operation with the Bethlehem after-care centre.

I want to thank the hon member for Worcester sincerely for his contribution to the debate, as well as the fine words he had to say about the flower I was wearing in my lapel yesterday, which ostensibly improved my outward appearance so considerably! I wish I could say the same of all the other hon members of the Committee, but there are hon members—I am not going to mention any names now—whose outward appearance not even a flower would improve.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Kuruman is one of them! [Interjections.] Nothing can improve his outward appearance! [Interjections.]

I have very great appreciation for the understanding the hon member for Worcester displayed for the financial problems with which institutions for the deaf and the blind, particularly in Worcester, have to contend. The hon member is aware that the department and I are looking into these problems very sympathetically. I know that sympathy cannot cover their costs, but we are as far as possible trying to meet the needs of these institutions in any case. I also want to assure the hon member that the need for a better scheme for the multiple handicapped will not be overlooked. This was a very serious problem to which the hon member referred, that is to say when people are not only blind, but are handicapped in other ways as well, and are also mentally defective, spastic or deaf.

The matter of the appointment of further professional personnel such as activity leaders, occupational and physiotherapists, orientation and mobility instructors and pastoral psychologists is being investigated. As soon as the investigation has been completed, I shall be able to furnish the hon member with more particulars in this regard.

The hon member for Stilfontein also made an important contribution here and raised a very serious matter. He spoke about the grey areas one has when one is dealing with those whose incomes are just above the limit and who therefore do not qualify for free medical services. These are the people with marginal incomes. They are only just excluded by the means test, so that they do not qualify to receive a pension. The hon members for Edenvale and Durban Point, and others, also referred to the means test.

It is a fact that these people may approach the magistrate or full-time district surgeon with a request for private medical services. I am referring now to these people who are marginal cases. They can also approach the magistrate for a transport warrant so that they can be assisted financially with their transportation costs. I concede to the hon member that these measures still do not solve the problem. Some time ago now I instructed the department to see whether a system could not be devised whereby we could be of assistance to these cases as well, so that they could receive pre-medical services, particularly medicines.

The hon member Dr Vilonel had quite a lot to say about privatisation. I want to repeat that the State is and remains responsible for the subeconomic patients. The department is investigating the possibility of entering into agreements with the private sector, by means of which the private sector will erect the hospitals and make beds available to the department.

The hon member for Newton Park referred to the institution known as Aurora. He touched upon an important facet of our departmental services in regard to the rehabilitation of the seriously mentally handicapped person. Aurora is the only day-centre in the whole of Port Elizabeth. It meets an important need, and it is greatly appreciated. I can tell the hon member that the financial provision for this centre was recently expanded. Representations have already been made to the Treasury for the future subsidisation of the medical and paramedical costs of inter alia physiotherapy and occupational therapy. In this way the community will be better able to render effective service to the seriously disabled.

†The hon member for Pinetown referred to crèches and, unfortunately, I did not refer to this particular facet of his speech of yesterday evening either. Investigations are being conducted at present in respect of the physical facilities for crèches. Comments on norms and standards for buildings and equipment have been obtained from different bodies. The results of this investigation are being studied and draft regulations in this respect will soon be submitted to me by the department for my consideration.

The regulations in terms of the Child Care Act are being finalised at present and it is expected that the Act will come into effect soon. I shall reply personally to the hon member in regard to the other matters raised by him.

*The hon member for Boksburg made a very interesting and constructive speech. In particular he referred to town planning and to the fact that welfare expenditure should be identified at an early stage of the planning process. These are definitely suggestions we shall follow up.

The hon members for Swellendam and Beaufort West referred to our elderly persons with great compassion, something for which I have very great appreciation.

This afternoon the hon member for Randfontein touched upon a very important matter, a matter which is a cause of very grave concern to us in the department. This is the question of family homicides. I can tell him that we believe that the programmes for the improvement of the quality of life can contribute to a decrease in family homicides or in such a tendency. It was very interesting to learn from such an expert in this specific sphere what he considered to be the causative factors for this gruesome phenomenon which is occurring in our national life. This department’s social workers speak to applicants for social relief and other people in need of care, and we are trying to provide a clinical service in that area as well, but we shall very definitely follow up the suggestions put forward by the hon member.

I also want to refer to the hon member for Koedoespoort, who pleaded for consideration to be given to assisting elderly persons in the community, inter alia by paying for their lights and water and so contributing to the maintenance of their own homes. This proposal seems to be a very sound one, but it will just not be possible to implement the proposal as put forward by the hon member.

We suggest that people who are renting houses and are no longer able to afford the rent, consider getting together a group of people by means of a welfare organisation to occupy that house with them. If they occupy the house as a group, it provides them with security and makes them self-sufficient. They can then cook their own food, keep the house clean and club together to pay the rent.

The same applies to senior citizens who occupy houses but can no longer afford them because of the rates, electricity tariffs, etc. The houses can be made available to a welfare organisation so that people can form a group and live together. With us the emphasis is on keeping elderly persons in the community as long as possible, and this would be a means—I think a far better means—of succeeding in this, rather than to admit such a person to an institute, particularly the block institutions, for the necessary care and accommodation. When people are able to group together in such a house and undertake the housekeeping themselves, even the cooking and paying the rent on a collective basis, then a solution to this problem could be found among these people.

I am very sorry that I cannot react any further to any of the speeches made by other hon members because my time has expired, and I still have a degree of respect for the Whips, with the result that I shall merely … [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon the Minister prepared to reply to a question?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Will the Minister deal with the questions I put to him by means of correspondence? I understand that his time is limited.

Yes, I shall do so. The hon member anticipated what I was going to say.

Mr Chairman, you will allow me just to say that my department has received instructions to peruse the Hansards of hon members in regard to matters on which they require information or in regard to specific representations which have been addressed and to which I have not replied—something I should very much like to do. I can assure hon members that they will all be provided with replies, and their representations will receive attention. Hon members will receive written replies, either from me or from my department.

I want to thank the Committee once again for the constructive spirit which has prevailed throughout. I am sorry that I was not able to reply to all the hon members, but I think they understand my problems.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 3—“Education and Culture”:

Mr Chairman, since it is the first time, since I was asked to occupy this post on 1 July of last year, that I am acting in this capacity in this House, I do want to tell the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare that I am, in fact, wearing this flower in my button-hole to lend me a little lustre. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on this occasion I should, at the outset, just like to express a brief word of thanks to a few people. Firstly I want to convey my thanks to hon members of all parties in this House for the abundant goodwill they have displayed towards me during the past 11 months. I am very thankful for and appreciative of that fact. I should also like to extend a very sincere thanks to the members of the National Party’s women’s club who were kind enough to have a beautiful bunch of flowers delivered to my office this morning. I appreciate that tremendously. I think that flowers speak a language that we all understand. I should also like to express my particular thanks to my department. In speaking about my department, I do not only mean the Ministry, but include all the thousands of staff members—at a later stage I shall speak about this in greater detail—who make their contributions from day to day. I have the utmost appreciation for the loyal support given to me, in particular by those who are very close to me here in Cape Town and in Pretoria.

Somebody who is actually very close to me, in the sense that he looks after my security, suffered a very serious leg injury on the rugby field in Acacia Park two or three days ago. He now has to undergo a very delicate operation, and in his absence I want to wish him everything of the best and a speedy recovery.

This afternoon I should also very much like to express my thanks to the Chairman of the National Party’s study group on Education and Culture, and also to the group as a whole, for the outstanding empathy they have with this particular matter, a matter which is also very dear to their hearts. I also feel the need to express a particularly sincere word of thanks to Dr Jooste who is going to leave us, as hon members are, of course, aware. I would very much like to pay tribute to Dr Jooste, a leader, someone who has dedicated his life to the service of his community, his profession and, in particular, the children of this country. He began in education, and his whole career also attests to his absolutely unstinting efforts to serve the interests of his important calling. From 1975 to 1984 he was Director of Education in the Transvaal. Since 1984 he has occupied the post of Chief Executive Director of the Department of Education and Culture. During this debate there will be repeated indications of development and renewal that have taken place. His contribution to that was formiddable, to say the least. What is important, however, is that the growth that took place was never uncontrolled. It was always planned. It was always ordered. It was always scientific. Above all, it was rooted in unshakable values. That is how I have come to know Dr Jooste. And that is probably how I shall go on remembering him. It is therefore with regret that we take leave of him in the Department of Education and Culture. I do know, however, that with his special gifts of heart and mind, he will make an outstanding contribution in his new capacity as Director General in the Administration: House of Assembly, where he assumes duty on 1 June of this year. There, too, I wish him everything of the best.

To Dr Jooste and his wife we extend the utmost thanks for the fact that they have both, as members of the teaching profession, served education for 42 years now. Since they are now going to sever their close ties with education, let me just wish them everything of the best and thank them for what they have done. I also want to thank him because I know that in his heart of hearts he is an educationist and that in future he will also make a contribution whenever it is possible for him to do so. I therefore want to extend a very sincere thanks to him and to his wife.

Hon members must also permit me to express a particular word of thanks, from the department, to Mr Cornelissen, in whose place Dr Jooste will find himself from 1 June, for the outstanding contribution he has made in carrying out the duties of this department.

The year 1986 will go down in history as an historic year for education. An ideal has been realised. Educational policy is no longer being determined by separate second-tier authorities. After 76 years this House is now the final political authority exercising control over own educational policies. Equally important is the substance being given to the new structures. Important principles, embodied in the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act, are now being given substance. During this session I intend to introduce legislation making provision, amongst other things, for the necessary substructures in which the organised parent community and the organised teaching profession can be represented. With a view to the optimal decentralisation of the executive authority, provincial education boards will probably be established. These boards will be performing an extremely important function. They will advise on the policy to be formulated and they will implement that policy. Functions for the planning of education in each province will be delegated to them so that they can assist in maintaining the individual character of education in each province. I want to point out, however, that as often as they see fit, these boards will meet for a day or for a few days in the course of the year. They will therefore not be meeting on a permanent footing or for long periods of time.

The boards, which I shall be constituting from representatives of the parent community, the organised profession and experts in the department and in the community, will see to it that local needs are met.

Efficient administration will be ensured by linking up the services of the respective departments into networks. Duplication of research, media services, curricula services, computer services and other services will be eliminated. Each provincial education department will retain its services, but they will co-operate in interdependent networks of the Department of Education and Culture. The amending Bill will also make provision for the creation of negotiating structures with the organised profession and other educational partners so that professional spheres of authority can be established. To supplement the amending Bill, regulations will of course also have to be promulgated to regulate various matters, for example the composition and function of the provincial education boards, the rationalisation of the functions of the Federale Council of Teachers’ Associations in South Africa and the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites and to regulate financial contributions for private schools. About the latter I shall be making a statement at a later stage in the debate.

Both the structures for the determination of policy, and its planned implementation, will contribute towards increasing the standard of education in general. The primary educational task in the classroom, where teachers teach the children, remains the same, however. It is our endeavour to implement the new dispensation in such a way that there is the least possible disruption of practical, everyday education.

The new dispensation is creating a department, the proportions of which I do not think have yet been fully grasped by everyone. This debate is taking place about a department with a budget of approximately R3,3 billion. It has more than 6 000 institutions or offices under its jurisdiction, including 11 universities, 8 technikons, 18 teachers’ training colleges, 71 technical colleges, 14 regional and sub-offices for cultural affairs, 7 declared cultural institutions and 3 518 schools. The department has an overall staff complement of 123 000. More than 62 000 of these are teachers.

†For 1985 separate annual reports have been compiled by the Department of Education and Culture and the provincial departments of education. For 1986 only a single annual report about all these activities will be laid upon the Table of this House. In future I shall be reporting on a wider field. As far as the 1985 annual report of this department is concerned, I would like to mention a few points.

Education is provided for 6 692 pupils in 34 schools for special education. There are 2 390 pedagogically handicapped children in 20 child care schools and 3 784 mentally retarded children in 41 training centres.

The department controls 70 residential technical colleges at which about 106 000 students were trained during 1984. The Technical College of South Africa—Technisa—offers teletuition to approximately 5 000 people. The Westlake and Vereeniging trade training centres offer vocational training in various trades to 317 adults.

National examinations are written at 652 examination centres. The number of subjects in which the department set examination papers amounted to 3 230. In all, 73 632 certificates and diplomas were issued. More than two million examination papers were printed by the Government Printer. At 143 of these 652 examination centres candidates from other population groups only were examined. Truly, Sir, that is excellent service.

I now turn to the Subdirectorate: Educational Technology. This division is 50 years old this year, and is becoming more and more important. An advanced language course in Afrikaans has been developed for adult immigrants. It will be used at technical colleges which offer free instruction in languages to adult immigrants with the aid of a language laboratory. In the course of the year 622 immigrants received instruction in Afrikaans and 367 in English.

In the department’s 1985-86 budget for the 11 universities with their 153 526 students, provision was made for a sum of R656,682 million. For the eight technikons with their 30 975 students, R135,086 million was budgeted.

*As far as cultural matters are concerned, I should like to bring the following to the committee’s attention. The fact of the matter is that the department that has always been responsible for cultural affairs is now becoming the head office for White education and culture. Up to now the Directorate of Cultural Affairs and the cultural promotions campaign of the Department of Education and Culture has been restricted to the central department. In White education, however, a larger unity was created on 1 April 1986 by virtue of the fact that provincial education departments are coming together with the Department of Education and Culture to form a single unit. As far as the promotion of culture is concerned, in future new possibilities can be exploited since the department now has a much more comprehensive infrastructure at its disposal than was previously the case. A pilot committee has been nominated to investigate the promotion of culture and recreation in the new dispensation. Experts from the Afrikaans-language and English-language cultural sectors have been invited to serve on this committee.

As is apparent from the annual report, 248 organisations have involved 66 767 people in projects on departmental camping sites, and 205 419 people have been involved in 2 246 projects or clubs. This includes family education, home-making, the natural sciences, youth projects, the promotion of the arts, etc. On all these functions I can report positively today because they are being dealt with by a competent and dedicated corps of teachers. Today I want to express my sincere thanks for the wonderful services rendered by each and every teacher, each and every official—including the most junior ones— who silently carry out their task in promoting the overall cause. [Interjections.]

†I have already given the assurance that the own character of the provinces will be retained insofar as this can be justified educationally. It is not our intention to centralise education and create a bureaucracy. This is why I find it strange that voices are raised in protest against our Constitution which has established a ministry to handle matters of general interest but thereafter places education in the hands of own affairs Ministers and departments.

I would like to make a categorical statement: Only once in its history did Germany have one central ministry of education. That was under Hitler, and at that time it suited the majority to use education as a political instrument for German unity and Nazi domination. After Germany had once more become democratic the country returned to 11 ministries for the 11 Länder. The shadow of fear cast over Western Germany by one single department led to the rejection of the idea of a national education policy as late as 1959. Only in 1969—24 years after Hitler— was a Federal Ministry of Education and Science established which, just as in the case of our Department of National Education, lays down the guidelines in respect of certain specified matters. The 11 Länder have 11 sovereign education systems within the West German national unity.

But they are not based on race!

The rights of the inhabitants of Saxony, Westphalia, Hamburg, etc, are protected in this way.

Germany does not have a single education system and neither has America, Belgium, Britain or Russia. This is but one argument against a single department of education for the RSA. There are a number of others. The education department would be vast, it would be a bureaucratic monster and educational change would be virtually impossible. The problems associated with vast bureaucracies are too well known to need further discussion here.

The idea of a melting pot—so much in vogue during the fifties and sixties in America—is no longer credible. Vast educational structures imposed from above have led to alienation not only in the RSA but in developing States.

*It is of great importance to us that the children of all population groups should receive a proper education. It is in the general interest and therefore also in our interest. But I also want to ask that the relevant demands made on White education should really attest to a balanced and sober approach too.

To those who demand that White schools be thrown open to all and that all education fall under the control of one education department, let me ask the following: Have they considered the fact that this would lead to a break in the natural continuity between the education a child receives at home and that which he receives at school? Have they considered the fact that as a minority group they would be relinquishing self-determination in regard to their children’s schooling to the influence of the majority? Have they thought of the fact that that would make the school’s task of cultural promotion virtually impossible? Have they an answer to research findings that subsystems are particularly popular in countries where there are extensive cultural and religious differences, as is the case here, amongst other places?

In the RSA there are, notwithstanding the lessons that one can learn from other countries—think, inter alia, of Britain and Belgium—still people who advocate that own affairs be relinquished, who are in favour of one education department and who evidence no understanding for education which is adapted to the needs of each community. They are people who, in spite of the historically proven possibilities for abusing the system of education within a single education department, still favour the idea of minority groups relinquishing their self-determination in regard to their own affairs and even relinquishing their self-determination in regard to their major responsibility, that of educating their children. These people speak disparagingly of education as an own affair, in spite of the fact that in many countries education is specifically embodied in subsystems in recognition of national diversity.

Several internationally acknowledged State scientists have shown that in States with a diversity of population groups attempts are usually made to accommodate the unity or community of structures as well as their diversity. W. Kägie speaks of an order of multiplicity in unity, ie an order based on the autonomy of smaller communities which, amongst other things, differ linguistically, culturally, from a religious point of view, socially and ethnically.

J La Palombara has pointed out that such systems are extolled for their ability to permit national unification without the loss of the separate entities of the subnational groups or units that go to make up the whole. It is such a model that the Government is contrasting with the idea of one structure in which the majority has the final say about everything and in which the self-determination of national subgroups, in regard to their own affairs, is nullified.

Therefore, linking up with what I said in this House in March, I gratefully want to refer to the hon the Minister of the Budget’s announcement on 24 March. I am referring here to the additional responsibilities allocated to the Department of Education and Culture, those of staff and accounting.

This now enables this department to be a full-fledged department and to pursue its objectives with greater efficiency. It confirms the Government’s faith in education as an own affair and in own affairs departments as self-determination mechanisms.

This country’s educational problems—I believe this with all my heart—will not be solved by administrative structures. Much more important is a body of pupils or students who are ready to learn, who are receptive, for whom provision has been made in the sphere of education and who are enthusiastic. The body of teachers, too, must be inspired, well-trained and assured of community support. It does not matter whether the pupils and teachers are Whites, Coloureds, Indians or Blacks; this is broadly applicable.

Every argument I have mentioned is an argument in favour of an intimate link between the school, the home and the community.

Once Germany had a single education system. That was when people were in power who wanted socialistic control, by the State, over a person’s body, mind and spirit.

The time has come for those who want a unitary system of education—and amongst them there are hon members of this Committee—to give their reasons. They can no longer hide behind the ethnic basis of our differentiated system. The composition of the population in this country happens to be ethnic in nature—that is a given fact. Neither they, nor I, can change that. The Government accepts the reality. [Interjections.]

It is nevertheless important, alongside the recognition of the diversity that public schools have to deal with, to make provision for the different kinds of needs in the services that are furnished. The need for such services was foreseen and recorded in item 14 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution. We would very much like to put that provision into operation in the spirit in which it was drafted and continue to provide the necessary service.

That is specifically why this department provides an extensive service to other departments, for example in regard to examinations and media services, and also to tertiary institutions and private schools. That is why the Government grants financial support to the private schools that make provision for the recognised needs of cultural and religious groups. At a later stage I shall be making a further announcement about this, particularly in regard to the private schools.

The attention of hon members are focussed on the fact that it is possible, in a controlled manner, to furnish services through our universities and technikons to the members of other population groups without the individual character of the institutions necessarily being prejudiced. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the institutions for tertiary education for the responsible way in which they are handling sensitive issues. And that is only right, because academic freedom and autonomy presupposes academic responsibility and self-discipline. I should also like to issue a timely and friendly warning to institutions who permit the Constitution to be undermined by way of certain action that is taken or utterances that are made. I have no desire whatsoever to curtail freedom of conscience or academic freedom or any intention of doing so either, but the deliberate and undemocratic subversion of this country’s Constitution and the authority of the State points a finger at the integrity of such institutions and does not contribute to the welfare or the image of the tertiary sector.

What about the future? With the utmost honesty, seriousness and frankness I extend my hand today, on behalf of this department, to all those who want to help. Let us consciously choose to remove education from the political arena. I am now talking of the party-political arena, because there is a difference—we can debate that at a later stage—between politics, party-politics and politicking. Let us take politics out of the party-political arena and that of politicking. [Interjections.] Let us consciously choose to reconcile unity and diversity and to gauge our love for ourselves by our love for our neighbours. Thus we can build up a future of dynamic cultural balance—a dynamic balance that will ensure increasing educational innovation in the interests of all the children of this beloved country.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

Take two hours.

Thank you very much. During the course of my speech I shall refer to some of the matters which the hon the Minister dealt with during the course of his speech.

At the outset, let me join the hon the Minister on behalf of the PFP in thanking Dr Jooste for his many years of service to education and in wishing him well in the new post to which he is being appointed.

The hon the Minister made a long speech.

He defended the own affairs aspects of education in South Africa and did everything in his power to prove to us that own affairs education was essential for preservation of the culture, the rights and the identity of the various groups in South Africa.

However, he almost deliberately ignored the fact that the position of this party is that we wish to remove race as a divisive factor in the provision of education in South Africa because it is our sincere wish to create a united South African nation from the very disparate ethnic, racial, religious and economic communities of our society—to create from this plural society with its real and significant divisions a nation and a society in which people respect and understand one another and can co-operate with one another in the achievement of common goals.

It is not easy to achieve that, and we have never suggested that it would be easy. However, to physically separate children deliberately in their formative years so that it is impossible for them to get to know and understand one another, is to create deliberately an arena of racial conflict for the future of our country. That is why we oppose so strongly the policies of the Government which deliberately and by design separate our people from one another. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister also chooses to ignore the fact that there is a huge difference between our concept of educational departments which are part and parcel of a geographic federation, and the Government’s concept of racially divided education. Later in the debate I would like to come back to some of those matters and I think other speakers in this party will deal with that aspect.

It is interesting that the hon the Minister is pleading for “people’s education”, which is precisely what the UDF, the ANC and the SA Communist Party are pleading for for the Black communities in this country. [Interjections.] It is the same kind of concept of an isolated form of education, a racial educational cocoon not allowing for communication, association or co-operation with the other communities in the country.

The hon the Minister said that he would be making an announcement with regard to the subsidisation of private schools. On a previous occasion he confirmed that there would be a racial basis for the provision of subsidies. Nothing less than an announcement from him that subsidies to private schools will be totally free of any racial connotation will be acceptable to the hon members on this side of the House. [Interjections.] If he expects us to respond warmly to his announcement, it will have to be one which does not make race a deciding factor in the provision of subsidies for private schools.

All the very dedicated, enthusiastic and hard-working participants in the De Lange Committee which reported some six years ago could never have guessed that in 1986 South Africa would see a system of education based on rigid segregation. The Government does not like the word “apartheid”. I am going to try the word “segregation” to see whether they like that better. The education system is based on rigid racial segregation from pre-primary education to postgraduate education. I often think that we are worse off now than we were before the De Lange Committee presented its report. We now have a system of education in South Africa, whether we like it or not, where from the cradle to the grave, as far as education and training are concerned, the Government has structured these in terms of race. I think that is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for the future of this country, and I wish to appeal to the Government to attempt to get away from this system and to work towards a system which will provide for education where South Africans can communicate with one another and can achieve education together, so that that education is not just a technical education but one which involves the dimension of the development of sound interpersonal relationships.

I want to say something about the present parliamentary system. It is inefficient because a tremendous amount of time is wasted on insignificant and agreed matters. During debates on legislation which we are all agreed upon, hon members, particularly those on the Government side, will make half-hour long speeches, and more in the form of high school essays which are probably written by officials. However, when it comes to matters of real importance there is very little or no time to discuss them. [Interjections.]

Yes, like the Constitution! [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House had 29 minutes to discuss the Vote on National Education …

Order! I cannot allow the hon member to discuss the parliamentary system now. He must confine himself to the Vote under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I am discussing the parliamentary system as it relates to own affairs education. The point I am trying to make, is that we had 29 minutes to discuss the Vote of National Education. We have 80 minutes for the discussion of the Education and Culture Vote. I assume the hon the Minister would like us to talk about the painting of the gutters of schools, the cutting of grass on sidewalks and the consumption of toilet paper, because that is basically what own affairs education in regard to schools might be about. [Interjections.] However, we will not get down to those matters that the hon the Minister wants to talk about until we have dealt with the most important affairs of education, which is establishing a system of education in South Africa which will bring about a stable and sound society of which peace and prosperity will be the hall-marks and not conflict, as we have in education in South Africa today.

I think the whole system needs to be reviewed, and I think that this hon Minister and other Ministers must assist in bringing that about. One aspect of the new dispensation which has proved itself to be effective, is that of the standing committees. There we can talk to one another face to face in an open manner. A process of give and take, of negotiation prevails. Members do not play to a gallery and it has been possible to reach compromises on important matters, to be constructive and to make real progress. I think it would be worthwhile if similar standing committees could be created for own affairs matters as well so that we can give the same attention to own affairs matters as we do to general affairs matters. Moreover, I think that the scope of the standing committees should be expanded and that departmental policy as well as the department’s annual report and its functions should be consistently subject to searching discussion at such standing committee meetings.

Let me now address the hon the Minister. I want to talk to him very, very seriously. On a previous occasion I said that to me he was toffee number two because the Government clings to this system of segregated education like toffee to a woollen blanket. At the moment, this hon Minister is the fly in the ointment which is preventing us from moving away from segregation in education. I believe that by undergoing a change of heart, the hon the Minister could in fact assist us in moving away from it. The hon the Minister can create a fortress for himself from which he may defend the racial prejudice, the selfishness and the shortsightedness of one particular community which has been characteristic of the apartheid system in the past; alternatively, this hon Minister can do something totally different; something far more dynamic and effective.

Resign!

He can see to it that he and his department become a fountainhead of reform. They can assist the reform process in South Africa. They can show that they care for all the other people in our community and they can help the other communities to improve their standards of education. This department has tremendous facilities and resources at its disposal, as well as extensive experience and knowledge which it can share with the other communities by opening up to them, by communicating with them and by bringing them into close contact with this department.

Reform must, however, be based on an initiative that is taken in good time. It must not be something that is done very reluctantly and clumsily and with a lack of grace. In particular it must not be something which happens under duress because then one does not achieve the goodwill that is associated with sound reform.

How can this department help? How can the Department of Education and Culture of the House of Assembly help the rest of South Africa? It can do so in many ways. It has been proved by one of my colleagues that in the White education colleges in South Africa there are a tremendous number of unutilised places in respect of teacher training. Surely those places could be used to train Black, Coloured and Indian teachers— without conceding any one of the Government’s fundamental sacred cows—in order to alleviate the tremendous shortage of qualified Black teachers.

Black teachers throughout the country today are trying desperately to upgrade their training. What they need is assistance, and there is not a place in South Africa where there are not White teachers of the hon the Minister’s department who have the time and the ability to assist those Black teachers who are struggling to upgrade their educational qualifications. This is an initiative which the Government and this department can take and one which will bring about goodwill if they are prepared to go to those Black teachers and say: “Let us help you; we have the ability to do so.”

I turn now to all the unemployed White teachers in South Africa. We should encourage them to offer their services to the Black schools where there is a shortage of qualified Black teachers. Once again, these things do not simply happen by themselves. However, if the Government takes an initiative in this regard, such a step would create much goodwill.

On the other hand, White schools in South Africa are running empty. There is a White school in my constituency which, a few years ago, had 750 children. Today it has 200 children. Throughout South Africa there are numerous White schools which are totally empty. There are also White schools which are partially empty.

There is a desperate lack of school space for Black children in this society. Cannot the Government make a gesture of goodwill—of good sense—and say to Black children that they are welcome to occupy those vacant spaces? [Interjections.] It will not cost us much more because the overheads will remain the same.

That would be tokenism.

The hon the Minister of National Education says that would be tokenism but that would not at all be the case. It would be a gesture of goodwill which cannot but achieve a good response from the Black community.

I believe that if we are to achieve equal norms and standards in education in South Africa, ie in examination and certification, then we have to start making real progress. I think real progress will be made once we have decided on one examination, either on a national or a regional basis, for all the communities in our country. I say this because the examination is the final assessment of a child’s achievement. If there is one standard examination, it will immediately result in an improvement in the norms and standards for teacher training, curriculae, text books, school facilities and so forth, in order to achieve an equal performance in such an examination.

On a previous occasion I appealed to the hon the Minister—and I do so again—to support our call for an open department of education. I am not asking him to accept PFP policy which requires that all schools which are subsidised by the Government be open to all children on a neighbourhood basis. However, if the Government really believes in the principles which it has set out, such as the principle of self-determination and of freedom of association which is one of the principles enshrined in the law, and if it is genuinely serious about its undertaking to provide equal education opportunities, then it must create an open department of education. The controlling bodies of schools, colleges and universities must then be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to remain under the present departments or whether they wish to place themselves under an open department of education. [Interjections.]

A tremendous breakthrough would be achieved in this way. The Government apparently will not do this because, it says, the public is not ripe for it yet. The Government tends to be nervous about what is happening on the right wing. However, in the past two weeks a report on the findings of the HSRC appeared. I want to quote just one paragraph:

I believe this is a remarkable improvement.

A survey was conducted among teachers in Natal. The finding was as follows:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, I do not have the time to answer questions now. [Interjections.]

*This past week-end Rapport reported as follows on a finding:

[Interjections.]

†The point I want to make is that South Africa is moving in the direction of opening up our society, our schools, our residential areas and our whole system to all the people in the country. [Interjections.] The Government must not do the following two things. It must not follow public opinion; it must lead public opinion, and the Government must stop looking over its right shoulder. The right wing are only 3% of the people of South Africa, but 97% of the people of South Africa want an open society for our country. [Interjections.]

In the few minutes left to me I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate the whole matter of corporal punishment at schools. Corporal punishment is widespread—in the Black communities it is the second most important complaint of Black schoolchildren. It is not an effective deterrent or an effective motivator of children. In most countries they have dispensed with this form of punishment and have replaced it with far more effective systems of punishment.

It often causes severe psychological damage in children, particularly sensitive children. It causes humiliation and it causes disrespect for authority. Our country has seen an enormous increase in the level of violence at all levels of our society. I believe that corporal punishment at school implants in the minds of children the idea that the way to deal with problems and conflict is via violence. I am not saying that it is the only or most important factor, but it is a factor in making violence a norm and a way of life in our country.

It is no good saying that there are regulations to control it. They are not effectively adhered to. I believe that we would be doing our country and society a favour if we were to appoint a commission of inquiry to examine the entire aspect of corporal punishment at schools from the point of view of making recommendations as to ways and means to bring about order at schools, to bring about co-operation between pupils and teachers and to bring about a better spirit—a more positive and constructive spirit—without the use of corporal punishment; and, where necessary, to recommend systems of punishment which may be more effective in order to control schoolchildren effectively.

Mr Chairman, while I was listening to the beginning of the hon member for Bryanston’s speech, the only conclusion I could arrive at was: “Here we go again!”

Before referring any further to the hon member for Bryanston I should like to join the hon the Minister in congratulating Dr Jooste on behalf of our NP study group. His promotion to the post of Director General is, as far as I am concerned an essential step.

Dr Jooste’s part in causing the changeover from the provincial education department to the Department of Education and Culture to take place so smoothly will be recorded in the annals of South African education and specifically of White education as a magnificent beacon and monument to him. [Interjections.]

The change-over of White education to one department is a great and happy moment for education in South Africa. That is why it is also a pleasant privilege to me to welcome the four directors of education of the four provinces who are sitting in the officials lodge this afternoon. It is indeed a pleasure to see them there. Over the years the provinces have served and have augmented and refined education. The result is that today we are able to amalgamate four finely honed and excellent education systems into one fine department. We should also like to pay tribute to all who contributed to bringing White education to where it is today. We are thinking here of the respective administrators of the provinces over the years, the MECs who were and are in charge of education in the provinces, the members of the provincial councils who served education over the years, as well as the respective professional associations in the provinces. All of these persons and organisations contributed to making something splendid of education.

And now you are destroying everything with your integration!

Order!

They served education, and we should like to thank them very sincerely.

I now want to welcome the hon the Minister very sincerely, on behalf of the caucus group, on his appointment to this portfolio. We believe he is the right man in the right place at the right time.

Mr Chairman, to be able to conduct a meaningful and constructive debate on education, it is necessary to state certain general acts. There are realities, the realities of education. While I was listening to the hon member for Bryanston, I hoped that he would agree with me on these facts. After having listened to him, however, it has become very clear that he will not accept these realities, these facts in South Africa.

The first fact is that here in South Africa we are dealing with a multinational and heterogeneous population structure. We cannot escape this reality. We must face it and deal with it. A second obvious fact is that everyone—all groups in South Africa—may lay claim to the privilege of education. In the third place it would be unjust and even unwise to argue that not everyone in South Africa may lay claim to equal education. Hence the government’s unambiguous standpoint in the White paper that what should be striven for was equal educational opportunities, including equal education standards, for every inhabitant of the Republic regardless of his race, colour, religion or sex.

Fourthly, it must be accepted that the Whites, due to certain factors, have incorporated a certain expertise in their structure, which has given them, the Whites, an historical lead over the other population groups. Unfortunately this has led to the development of a considerable backlog, especially in Black education. Fifthly, while equal education for everyone is being striven for in South Africa, it is also necessary to acknowledge the diversity of the education systems as they exist at present. These are the facts, the realities as regards education in South Africa. We in the National Party accept these hard concrete realities, and we are working on them and are trying to look for solutions to the existing problems. Hon members of the PFP, however, create the impression that they want to wish away these realities. Once again the hon member for Bryanston made this clear in his speech earlier this afternoon. They want to ignore these facts completely. The Conservative Party on the other hand, Mr Chairman, wants to pull a blanket over these realities.

No! No! Do not talk nonsense!

Order!

They acknowledge the facts, but refuse to face up them or to deal with them. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, let us deal briefly with the last two statements which I made—the one concerning the historical advantage of the Whites and the acknowledgement of diversity. It is then for these reasons that provision is made in the Constitution for the rendering of service by one department to another on an agency basis. Here I am referring to paragraph 14 of the First Schedule to the Constitution.

Thus the Department of Education and Culture would then provide the education departments of other groups with certain specific services on an agency basis. This principle of agency service must, however, not be seen as a deviation from the premise that education is an own affair, but rather that it is being done to prevent certain services from being duplicated, thereby preventing the cost of education from becoming disproportionately high. The watchword here is that education must be cost-effective, which must not be interpreted as a lowering of standards, but rather as an endeavour to make more effective education available. The costs of such services can be calculated. The way the education formula is put together makes the calculation of such a formula possible. The costs of services rendered by one department to another on an agency basis, will therefore have to be carefully calculated, and the department rendering the service will therefore be able to calculate an amount which will be charged for the rendering of such services, which can then be recovered from the recipient of the service.

Unfortunately time does not permit me to elaborate on examples of such services rendered. But I do wish to mention two examples. The first is the Directorate: National Examinations of the Department of Education and Culture of the Administration: House of Assembly, which inter alia conducts examinations on the pre-tertiary as well as the tertiary level. I could mention a few of these examinations. I think for example about the approximately 150 subjects which are provided up to and including the senior certificate for those not obliged to attend school, the so-called part-time candidates. It is a fine principle, which has been established for years in our education in which people can write certain subjects in order to acquire their std 10 certificate. What comes to mind is the National Technical Certificate—the NTS I to NTS VI—and the hairdressers; the printers’ and the paramedical services examinations. There are a whole range of these services which are rendered by the Department of Education and Culture to other population groups as well.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am merely rising in order to give the hon member for Gezina an opportunity to complete his speech. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Gezina may proceed.

I thank you, Mr Chairman, and I also thank the hon Whip of the Official Opposition.

The administration of these national examinations occurs on a centralised basis, and each population group does not deal with its own examinations only.

A second example is the Directorate: Education Technology, which renders certain services to all education departments in the field of modern technological aids on a membership basis.

I mention these examples merely to indicate that White education wishes to distribute its expertise and experience more widely than is normally accepted. For the sake of political gain one—or variations—of the following are laid at the door of the NP. It is said that the NP is engaged in a process of integrating education and is also moving gradually towards a system which includes everything and everyone. [Interjections.] On the other hand, we are also being accused of clinging to an unchanging and absolutely stagnant approach to education, which is aimed at being to the advantage of one group only, as the hon member for Bryanston asserted a moment ago. [Interjections.] Neither of these two assumptions are correct.

What is true?

The Government’s efforts and willingness to make equal education available to everyone must not be questioned. The objectives as put in the White Paper should not be doubted.

The way in which private schools are going to be dealt with in future is a further indication of the Government’s goodwill in this regard. [Interjections.] The new approach of subsidies for private schools, as announced by the hon the Minister, opens new doors for private schools. [Interjections.] I merely wish to express the hope that the private schools and their controlling bodies will act with the greatest degree of responsibility and self-discipline within established norms. I have every confidence that they will do so. The hon the Minister gave an indication that he would announce further particulars in respect of the subsidisation of private schools. I wish to assume that he would do it in this debate.

On the other hand I am pleading for the diversity of the communities in South Africa to be understood. The NP has committed itself to managing education in South Africa as an own affair. After all, it is concerned with the maintenance of the child, the most important component in education, his realisation of self and his identity. The NP does not want any children—not the White child, nor the children of other population groups in South Africa—to be deprived of their identity. If anyone were to assert that, they would be telling a deliberate lie. In the first place education is concerned with the conservation and promotion of our children’s way of life, their culture, their tradition and everything which is peculiar to them. That is what education is all about. Any person who alleges otherwise and deliberately strives to nullify it, is doing our children, who are our precious heritage, direct and deliberate harm.

I am not only pleading for the preservation of what is peculiar to all the groups in South Africa. I am not pleading for barriers, for isolation and for compartmentalisation in education; on the contrary, there are few things which would satisfy me more than greater and wider informal contact occurring between the children of the various population groups in South Africa.

Unfortunately my time has expired. I wish to conclude by referring to a statement which the State President made last year in Bloemfontein at a church youth gathering. He said:

What we do and how we act today and tomorrow must be such that the adults of the day after tomorrow will not criticise and reproach us. My belief in our educationists is great enough to have full confidence that they will try to preserve White education in a noble way. I know that we can rely on our teachers to apply themselves to their task in such a way that in these times in which great demands are being made in terms of responsibilities and reform, our youth will come out whole and unscarred at the end of their school career, but that they will also be hardened to face up to the demands of the times with renewed enthusiasm and courage.

Mr Chairman, the CP’s parliamentary caucus decided this morning to send a deputation consisting of the hon member for North Rand—the Chairman of our caucus—and the hon member for Lichtenburg to the State President to ask him to make the amphitheatre of the Voortrekker Monument available on 31 May 1986 for a mass gathering of the people. The appointment was requested, but was refused by the State President. He referred the deputation to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. I therefore now want to ask the hon the Minister, after the hon member for Umhlanga has spoken, please to give this Committee a reply to the request made to him. We would very much like him to give us a reply this evening.

The CP recognises the truth about education being an integrated facet in the pattern of life of a people. We are therefore not simply striving for the self-determination of a people in the constitutional field, but know that constitutional self-determination will also bring about self-determination in education. We therefore reject power-sharing in every sphere of the life of our people, not only here in Parliament, but also in education. Not only has the Government misled us by bringing about the parliamentary abdication of our State, but it is also sacrificing education on the altar of the goddess of liberalism.

The hon member for Pinetown knows her and loves her. [Interjections.]

I want to say, and let me quote someone:

The hon gentleman who said that, went on to say:

The man who said that knows nothing about liberalism!

The hon member for Bryanston says the man who said that knows nothing about liberalism.

Who said that?

Probably Piet Clase!

It is true that it is the hon the Minister of Education and Culture who said that. He went on to ask:

My colleagues and I have frequently asked what has happened to the hon member. What has happened to the old member for Virginia? [Interjections.] What has led to the paralysis of his spirit? What has happened to his will to resist the NP’s policy of integration and abdication? Let me tell the hon the Minister that he has become the victim of liberalism, the very things he spoke out against since way back. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister has just said that we should ensure that we do not drag politics into education. I want to remind the hon the Minister, however, about what he himself said in Hansard, column 2753.

Which year?

Which year? I know the hon the Minister is seeking to find out when, in the past, he said all this. He should now do what Prof Strauss, a member of the President’s Council, did. He said that everything he had previously written or said should be nullified. The hon the Minister should also issue such a decree stating that everything he said prior to 1982 should now be nullified. [Interjections.] We shall, however, be reminding the hon the Minister of his words until such time as we have removed him from those Government benches.

Just tell me what the source of the quote is.

On Friday, 10 March 1978—that was when the late Mr Vorster was still Prime Minister, and when everybody was still applauding his efforts—the hon member said:

He went on to say:

Yes, that is right! I stand by that!

Today I want to tell the hon the Minister that he and the rest of the Government are at present indoctrinating our young people.

Of course!

Of course, yes! They are doing so today with their henchmen in the liberal Afrikaans newspapers.

You are a lot of amateurs!

That hon Minister should rather go to Pietersburg to help the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs there. [Interjections.] He must just not send the Police there this evening, the police who must safeguard our country. [Interjections.]

At present the hon the Minister of Education and Culture are making efforts to indoctrinate our children and our young people with liberalist ideas, but they are not succeeding. From school to school and from one community to the next they are meeting their match in those of their compatriots who, as true Nationalists, are coming to the fore.

What is happening is that during the past two years school committee elections have been won by conservatives. [Interjections.] Now they come along and say that politics should be kept out of the schools. [Interjections.] They are like people who get into a boxing ring but do not have the guts to put on the gloves and stand up to their opponent. [Interjections.] The progress being made by conservatives is apparent in the clearcut successes being achieved. Every now and then the hon the Minister laments the fact that we are dragging politics into education, but we know what he did when he personally was involved. We also know what is still being done.

Let me tell the hon the Minister that an increasing amount of conflict is being generated in Southern Africa by his Government’s policy of power-sharing and integration.

But also a better system of education …

The hon the Minister is drawing that tension and conflict into the field of education, into the educational institutions of South Africa. He is drawing it into our schools, colleges and universities.

The hon the Minister is misleading and dividing our youth. On the one hand this leads to a slackness, doubt and confusion, but on the other hand there are fortunately enough young Afrikaner boys and girls who are immune to this inculcation of liberalism. [Interjections.]

The NP’s policy is destroying the character, aim and task of educational institutions, and I want to quote a few examples of that.

The following newspaper report relates to the change in the character of our education institutions:

But, Daan, there are just more Blacks!

The past few decades we have begun to get leftist militant young leaders at Stellenbosch who have become advocates of the leftist elements in our society. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister knows what I am talking about. The fine talents of young men and women are being used to make them the servants of leftist radicals. There are also lecturing staff members who assist in this. [Interjections.] CP members and other conservatives will be taking a very close look at these leftist-orientated lecturers who have preferred to become political activists rather than professional teachers at our tertiary educational institutions. [Interjections.] The parents of students today must be much more mindful—and much more seriously so—of what is taught and done by lecturers at our universities.

Must they be right-wing, Daan?

I have learned that Prof Mike de Vries said that the University of Stellenbosch was now ready to have its hostels thrown open to non-White students.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, may I propose that the hon member be given an opportunity to complete his speech? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to a few of the statements made by the hon member for Bryanston. We have again heard his usual plea for mixed schools. I want to ask him whether he has ever tried to obtain clarification, in his own mind, about the implications of mixed schools for education and training.

There are 180 mixed schools in South Africa and they are doing well!

Has the hon member honestly settled for himself what he envisages in having mixed schools?

Have you ever visited any mixed schools? He is talking about things he knows nothing about.

Is he not, in fact, envisaging what the writer Mgugi calls educational and cultural colonialism? Has the hon member ascertained what, for example, the consequences were, as far as education and training standards in the USA are concerned, of the system of mixed schools?

The hon member also asks that Whites who are so-called trained teachers, but who are now unemployed, be encouraged to make themselves available for work in Black schools. I should like to know from the hon member what he and his party have done to create a climate, in Black schools, where White teachers could teach with safety in the classrooms. Does the hon member know the humiliation that some of these people, who are really trying to furnish a service to those schools, have subjected themselves to by teaching there?

I should now like to come back to the hon member for Rissik. I just first want to point out that members on this side of the Committee have been labelled arch-liberalists, but it is specifically this side of the Committee that wants to develop the own affairs Department of Education and Culture into a fine and wonderful department that is really of some significance to the Whites, whilst it is that party on the conservative side that wants to denigrate this department. In other words, they denigrate the department which must be responsible for extending education and culture and which wants to do so. [Interjections.]

I listened very attentively to the hon member for Rissik’s speech and did not hear a single positive utterance about the promotion of the education and culture of our own people. There was merely a belittling and denigration of things that do and ought to have precedence, ie the education and training of our children and the maintenance and development of our own cultural life.

What is more, I made a study of all the speeches on education and training made by hon members of the CP in the House since they broke away from the NP. In not a single speech could I find any indication of a positive policy in connection with education and training, as that party sees it. All we have had from hon members of that party has been that they are going to take over the school committees and the control boards, as the hon member for Rissik has again boasted of doing.

I am just wondering what terms of reference those control bodies would give to the corps of teachers on education and training if that party were, in fact, to take over the control bodies in education and training. One also wonders what demands teachers are going to be subjected to in obtaining an appointment. [Interjections.] Oh no, please! Do not malign our teachers with inarticulate political gestures and utterances.

I should like to extend a friendly invitation to hon members to accompany me in spirit to a meeting where more than 300 primary school children, drawn from a large number of primary schools over a wide area, gathered. It was a function to mark the closing of a week-long period of camping and living together. Apart from the pupils there were also a large number of parents and interested guests of honour. The master of ceremonies for the proceedings on that night was an elected leader, a std 5 boy, assisted by a coleader, a girl, acting as secretary, also a std 5 pupil. With impressive self-confidence this young leader opened the proceedings with prayers and a reading from the Scriptures. With complete ease he was able to control and conduct the meeting, truly an experience of a lifetime. I could spend hours telling of what happened that evening and what a revelation it was. I can join the boys and girls in waxing lyrical about the experiences they had during the five days of camping and living close to nature under the leadership of enthusiastic and inspired leaders, both male and female.

I content myself with a plea that these boys and girls, together with almost 30 000 other boys and girls over the length and breadth of our fatherland—they are members of the Land Service Movement—should continue to have the wonderful privilege of being part of the marvellous experiences and adventures that the Land Service Movement offers to each of its members.

My actual representations relate to quite a different matter. Kimberley is a city with 34 000 White, 45 000 Coloured, 1 000 Indian and 75 000 Black inhabitants, in round figures, that is. For many years now Kimberley has been accepted as the unofficial capital of the Northern Cape, and I am convinced of the fact that under the new dispensation this lovely city will be the official capital of the new province of the Northern Cape.

In the educational and training sphere, in pre-primary, primary, secondary and special education, Kimberley offers a tremendous amount to its inhabitants and to those in the far reaches of the hinterland. It is nevertheless a regrettable fact that in Kimberley there are no facilities at all for any form of tertiary education, except by correspondence or tuition at a distance, as students of the University of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, this shortcoming, which has a very decided effect on community life, business life and on sporting activities— something on which I cannot elaborate now owing to a lack of time—has for years now been receiving the concerted attention of individuals and bodies interested in the fortunes of the people of Kimberley. Then the report of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission on Universities and the future of universities in South Africa appeared. On page 476 of the report the commission states, and I quote:

The possibility of the establishment of a satellite campus was immediately seized upon. Contact was made with the University of the OFS. It is with great appreciation that mention must be made here of the extremely sympathetic and helpful action taken by the aforementioned university which, in a wonderful and exemplary fashion, co-operated in conducting a viability study and doing cost calculations.

The eventual too high costs involved in the establishment of a satellite campus in Kimberley, together with an announcement by the then Minister of National Education on 21 May 1980 … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kimberley North will understand if I do not react to what he has just said in his speech. I do, however, want to respond to an argument advanced by the hon member for Rissik. The decision by the Government not to make the monument terrain available to the Conservative Party and to other members of the Afrikaans community is entirely foreign to us. Not for the life of this party can we understand how that can be seen as anything but the application of double standards. [Interjections.] If one is going to apply that one will have to stop Black people from commemorating Heroes’ Day, and just try to stop that! It is an impossibility. One will then have to stop English-speaking people going to some of their monuments on certain occasions. [Interjections.] It is absolute nonsense and, I must say, it is absolutely beyond comprehension and I think the NP has done itself terrible damage in doing this. [Interjections.]

As with the funeral restrictions!

I really do. The only reason they are doing this is because they are frightened, and the worst thing they can do is to show fear.

That is not really what I want to point out. What I would like to say is that when I came to this House in 1981 the hon the Minister of Education and Culture was sitting where the hon member for Ladybrand is now sitting. The hon the Minister—he was then only the hon member for Virginia—was among those who, when the counting was on, was well and truly settled among the 42 members of the CP. I must say that in this portfolio, as far as we are concerned, the evidence of those attitudes and those feelings live on in the hon the Minister and he is going to find himself in a very difficult position in this portfolio if he clings to the attitude he adopted at that time in the new South Africa in which he is in charge of a very sensitive portfolio.

I want to address the hon the Minister and this Committee on a particular point. In my second speaking tum I hope to be able to come back to the hon the Minister after he has replied. In this regard I want to refer to the hon the Minister’s decision to move the school at Kapenhof to George. I know that the hon the Minister said the following in his reply to a question. I quote from Hansard (House of Assembly) col 1472 of Tuesday 29 April:

First of all, it is not a reform school. I want to contest this reply and I want to ask the hon the Minister some questions. What I really want to ask him is whether he is in charge of his portfolio. I think this decision was actually taken by a lot of little grey men and the hon the Minister simply had to ratify it. I think he has been put in an awkward position and has not got the courage to say that that decision was the wrong one and that he will not ratify it, and I shall tell hon members why.

The reasons that the hon the Minister has put forward for this decision are totally in conflict—with the exception of one point— with the Van Loggerenberg Commission’s report. Really, what is the good of that commission’s having been appointed when the hon the Minister and his personnel take no cognisance of the main content of the commission’s report? I will refer to certain sections of that report to illustrate my point.

The real facts about that situation are that, because a school at George does not have a sufficient number of pupils, rationalisation is taking place. It is because those facilities have to be filled and because the building of those facilities has to be justified that the children are being made to suffer.

The decision that has been taken affects mainly children from the Western Cape since more than 50% of them come from this area. As for the balance, two come from South West Africa, ten from Port Elizabeth, Graaff-Reinet, Patensie, King William’s Town, Queenstown and East London, nine from the Transvaal, one from the Orange Free State and one from Oudtshoorn. When one considers this, it is clear to one that only the ten children from the Port Elizabeth area and the one child from Oudtshoorn derive the benefit of being nearer their parents. The remaining children—they are presently visited by their parents and are also integrated with the social workers strictly in accordance with the commission’s recommendations—are going to be put into an area where there is no hope of their parents’ visiting them since most of those parents are experiencing difficult circumstances. It is very unlikely, therefore, that the sort of interaction which the commission’s report indicates as absolutely necessary, is going to be forthcoming.

I believe the Government is practising double standards in this regard because the hon the Minister is not in the least concerned about the rationalisation of educational facilities elsewhere. There are teacher training colleges and technikons that are not being used to the full but in this case rationalisation and the filling of facilities are given as reasons for this step. However, the facilities at Kapenhof are absolutely perfect for the function which they are at present exercising. As far as therapy is concerned the circumstances are ideal, and that is why this institution is the best of its kind in the country and it is regarded as that after the short period of only seven years. In seven years it has already built up a name as being the best institution of its kind in this country.

In some correspondence concerning this matter reported in Die Burger of 20 September 1985 a spokesman for the hon the Minister’s department indicated the following:

There was also a letter to the paper from a Dr Raubenheimer in Die Burger of Friday 27 September 1985. This gentleman has been involved with and has visited something like 80% of all the schools similar to Kapenhof. I want to read the last paragraph of his letter:

I hope the hon the Minister has been fed with all the correspondence concerning this matter because his decision is wrong. It is incorrect and it borders on callousness. It is a situation that he cannot justify. I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that he reconsider his decision in order to rectify the situation so that he will not be seen as an intransigent person who is not prepared to listen to the needs not only of those children but also of that entire community who are up in arms about his decision because the decision reflects very badly on the hon the Minister’s personal approach to education.

The pages under consideration—as I am probably going to run out of time I will mention them by number—are pages 56, 57, 67, 68, 74, 122, 151, 159, 166 and 170. All these pages make mention of the absolute priority and total necessity of parents being within reach of the school and being integrated into the school activities; and also that the children should be allowed to go home to visit their parents.

The children from Durbanville who will be moved there number only 40. That institution has accommodation for 75. The institution is full; it is successful; it serves a particular area; and it has the necessary social workers and universities available. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am not going to comment on the hon member’s argument because he addressed the hon the Minister directly and I am sure the hon the Minister will reply to him.

I wish to begin by expressing our sincere thanks to the hon the Minister, his immediate predecessors and the departments of education that established the education model which was initiated on 1 April. When one takes a look at the basis and substance of the model which is being adhered to, one realises that an immense amount of work had to be done by a large number of educational experts in South Africa in order to create this model. We wish to express our sincere thanks to all those people for what they were eventually able to accomplish in regard to the centralised education department. The attitude of any person who is critical of this matter, and who wishes to destroy it, is a slap in the face to educational experts—and that includes every single educational expert in South Africa who collaborated on this matter. They were dealing with a model which has existed since 1910 and which is already 76 years old. From that model they had to extract these things which could still be put to good use in the general, centralised department—a department which falls under the direct control of the hon the Minister. This department, other than the provincial model which we knew before, is centralised in such a way that its executive power is quite considerable. Due to the centralisation of the new department it is also possible now to eliminate duplication from the educational activities of the department. Consequently it is now becoming a cost-effective enterprise, in which the highest potential of a highly developed labour force can best be developed and utilised, while retaining the empirical, unique and dynamic character of an independent education department.

I honestly think the end product is evidence of the profound thought and intense reflection which went into this matter. The reports which have been published in connection with this matter, and which I wish to bring to the attention of hon members, have as their central theme the overall concept of the networks and institutes which have now come into existence. Obviously I cannot do justice to this theme in the short time available to me. At best I can deal with it by way of summary.

I shall therefore refer briefly to the five main networks which have now been established. There is a network for professional services, a network for information gathering, a network for computerised management information, a network for curriculation and evaluation, and also a network for youth matters. In addition there is an institute for media provision services on a national level has been established, as well as an institute for examination services, and an institute for guidance services for the nonformal education level. I should like to spend some time discussing each one of these matters, but it is impossible and I shall therefore merely say briefly what is being envisaged with this kind of arrangement.

I have here a beautiful glossy edition of the Pretoria College of Education publication called Silhouette. Firstly, in order to explain these things, I merely wish to say that the rector of this College of Education is an ex-Potchefstroom University student. [Interjections.] This illustrates precisely what kind of network exists. One institution has wonderful people and has only to send one of those people to Pretoria to set that little village straight. [Interjections.] He has really turned this college into a wonderful place, for here in the middle of the publication there are glossy photographs which illustrates one facet of the college—Ina van Rensburg, Myrtle Botma, Yvette Armstrong, Hannes Pienaar, Ansie Rogers, Marilise Furstenberg, Jannie van der Merwe and Francois Fouché. There are eight Springbok athletes in one college of education!

Which college?

It is the Pretoria college of education.

There you have it!

Yes, but that is the situation now, after that man from Potchefstroom got the place straightened out so well. The point I wish to make is that here one has eight people, who are the best teaching material, in one institution. In one field these people are going to enrich at least eight schools by their presence. As I know education, Pretoria will do everything in its power to keep these eight people within the school area of Pretoria. [Interjections.] In that way the whole country is deprived of the privilege of benefiting from this wonderful teaching material.

Surely they can go wherever they like.

The second example I want to mention, is the case of Marinus Wynbeeck, one of our model teachers in the science laboratory. How many millions of people were glued to the television screens in the evening at quarter to six to watch this miraculous teacher explaining complicated scientific concepts to an audience which covered the entire spectrum of humanity—from small junior school children to adults—fascinating them with his presentation?

Everywhere in South Africa there are truly great and exceptionally successful teachers, but these are few and far between. These networks now envisage co-ordinating our highly developed teacher material at its central point. It will be possible to store this material in a central data bank in the form of syllabus projects, multi-media packages, audio-visual programmes with accompanying printed text etc. In so doing, we shall be able to make the best equipment and the best factual material in education in South Africa available to individual teachers. It will be possible to utilise this in every classroom in all the schools throughout our country.

The system can be expanded further. The school will be able to have direct access to this data bank if we refine this system further. In this way it will be possible to call up a question paper directly from the data bank, make it available in the classroom, and feed back the pupils’ answers into the data bank for correction. Within a question of a few minutes the results of the tests done in such a manner will be made available to the teacher and the child. This system can be refined even further. Can hon members imagine what the eventual possibilities of such a system are? It will be possible to make the question paper available throughout South Africa, over long distances at a rate of 120 characters per second, and over short distance at a rate of 4 800 characters per second. In this way a question paper will be available simultaneously throughout the whole Republic. Hon members would do well to note the safety aspects of this, as well as the cost-effectiveness in that the same standard will be set for all pupils. There are so many wonderful opportunities available in these networks. May I just mention another example, because time is catching up with me.

We can also involve the outside disciplines and the sister disciplines of education in this. Imagine how the SABC can fit into this education programme. The CSIR, the HSRC and the economic science organisations can all be included in one colossal co-ordinated organisation in order to make the latest developments in education available directly to the teacher and the child in the same classroom by means of these wonderful technological methods. The teacher will be maintained in the classroom situation, as well as teachers receiving training, and the child will join them, directly benefitting from the best material our country has available. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to echo the good wishes extended to Dr Jooste. As one of the members of this Committee who have probably bothered him most during his time as Chief Executive Director of his department, I certainly wish him a more calm and peaceful time in the Transvaal when he leaves here.

On behalf of hon members of this party and myself, I should also like to express to the departmental officials and the provincial directors—who have for the first time joined us here in Parliament—and their departments, as well as to the 62 000 teachers who fall under this department, the hope that the year that lies ahead will prove that change can come quickly, calmly and with the least possible disturbance.

I should also like to extend my compliments to the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations and the Teachers’ Council, who are also represented in the gallery today.

I should just like to react very quickly to one or two things the hon the Minister said. First of all, he commenced his address by welcoming the fact that we now have one authority in White education and the fact that the provinces are subservient to that. Later in his address, however, the hon the Minister condemned the concept of a single Ministry of Education.

That shows how confused he is!

I find the hon the Minister’s concept very strange. I consulted the basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany, and I found out that it provides that the entire educational system there is under the supervision of the state. However, what the hon the Minister did not say was that every basic right guaranteed in the educational system is also subservient to the rights of every individual. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the rights of every individual are guaranteed irrespective of his race, and he may attend any school. There are no “Gastarbeiter” schools which Turks and Yugoslavs have to attend because of their language and group.

I also find it quite interesting that events have taken such a turn that the hon the Minister has found it necessary to defend the federal concept as expressed in West Germany. I would like to quote from the constitutional policy of the PFP:

I am glad that the hon the Minister now agrees with PFP policy in this regard.

He just does not know it! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister then cited a number of other countries, namely the USA, Belgium, Britain and the USSR. I will be discussing this aspect further tomorrow, but I would like to make one point now. [Interjections.] In none of those countries are children obliged to attend a particular school. They and their parents have a choice.

The hon the Minister went on to say that if we have mixed schools or departments, we will—I quote—“cut off the natural continuity between education at home and the school”. That may apply to the hon the Minister, but it does not apply to me. I have Black friends who visit me at home. I belong to a church that is integrated. Why should my school not be integrated? That is the problem. The hon the Minister is effectively cutting my links because I believe this Government is practising cultural imperialism.

They are imperialists.

[Inaudible.]

I want now to turn very quickly to empty places in schools and colleges. The hon the Minister knows—he gave me the answer—that there are 2 600 vacant places in White colleges of education throughout South Africa, and it is only blind prejudice that has prevented them being used to the fullest extent in the past. I hope that they will be used in the future. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bryanston mentioned schools and their current enrolment, and I should like to follow this up. In answer to a question by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North the hon the Minister has indicated that there are 205 000 vacant places in White high and primary schools between potential enrolment and actual enrolment. This represents 20%—or one in five— of every place in an educational institution in South Africa; in other words, it represents 5 800 empty 35-pupil classrooms. I have no other word for it except to say it is a scandal! [Interjections.] What gross insensitivity to and downright robbery in respect of the millions of South African children who are not receiving education! All of those places are empty. Where are those children now receiving their education? The hon the Minister knows; he can turn around and talk to the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Development Aid. They are on the streets.

They are agitating.

They are practising violence. [Interjections.] Now what can we do about that? We know there are 205 000 empty places. What can we do about it? I want to quote what the De Lange Committee said in this regard. Hon members should remember that the De Lange Report was signed by, among others, Dr Jooste, Prof van der Stoep and others. I shall quote that tomorrow.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.